Better branding of -betterC
dylan.graham2000 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 1 08:34:41 UTC 2020
On Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 14:28:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 11:50:12 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar
>> I was wondering if it worthwhile branding -betterC differently
>> - e.g. use a brand such as 'micro-D' or some nicer name. That
>> is, give it a new identity that highlights that it not just
>> better C - but a D version without GC.
> I think it's a bad, bad, bad idea to put any emphasis on
> BetterC other than as a tool to help in porting C or C++ code
> to D, or to integrate D into existing C and C++ projects. I see
> too many people reaching for it first thing, probably out of a
> misguided GC phobia. D is the language we need to be promoting.
> BetterC was intended for a specific purpose. Beyond that, it's
> a crippled D. If some people prefer to use it that way, fine,
> but we shouldn't encourage it.
I use BetterC in my products (car engine/gearbox parts) targeting
ARM Cortex MCUs, but once I get a lightweight D runtime up I
intend to switch to that.
I think such a thing could reduce reliance on BetterC and allow
for quicker easing into full D.
Given it's a real time environment I'm thinking that Phobos
allocations will be tracked in a stack like structure per thread
and can then be freed at a later, convenient opportunity or
immediately after the Phobos call ends.
I could see about making some sort of small scale GC but that's
currently out of my depth.
More information about the Digitalmars-d