Better branding of -betterC

[Max Haughton]

On Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 14:43:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 02:28:58PM +0000, Mike Parker via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 11:50:12 UTC, Dibyendu 
>> Majumdar wrote:
> [...]
>> > [...]
>> 
>> 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.
>
> +1.
>
> Most people with GC phobia don't actually need to avoid the GC. 
> You really only need to avoid the GC if you're working in very 
> specific niches, like hard real-time requirements (game 
> engines, rocket booster controllers, etc.).  Your general 
> software project does not need to avoid the GC; you just need 
> to know how to use it effectively (and/or apply @nogc where it 
> matters).
>
>
> T

We could really use some more @nogc containers that use the 
allocators, in the standard library. Even if they don't work that 
well it's good marketing for the language. Unfortunately I think 
D's approximation move semantics might be a problem?