A Case for Oxidation: A potential missed opportunity for D

[rikki cattermole]

On 29/06/2018 10:55 PM, kinke wrote:
> 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.

It greatly simplifies development against existing C/C++ codebases.
To some people (for their given use cases) this can be a very good thing.

Removing barriers for adoption is a very noble but more importantly wise 
thing to do, and we should all aim to do it.