A Case for Oxidation: A potential missed opportunity for D

[kinke]

On Friday, 29 June 2018 at 10:00:09 UTC, Radu wrote:
> While not necessarily targeting bare metal, I'm very interested 
> in a working version of @safe dlang. I believe that dlang with 
> betterC, @safe, C/C++ inter-op and dip1000 will be huge for 
> replacing C/C++.

I'd love to hear some reasons for -betterC from a competent guy 
like yourself. I simply don't get what all the fuzz is about and 
what people expect to gain from losing druntime (and language 
features depending on it) and non-template-only Phobos. I 
understand the separate 'minimal runtime' need for bare metal (no 
Type- and ModuleInfos etc.), but I can't help myself in seeing 
betterC as, nicely put, worseD. I acknowledge that it seems to 
attract wide-spread interest, and I'd like to understand why.