Better branding of -betterC

[Paulo Pinto]

On Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 16:15:28 UTC, Dibyendu Majumdar 
wrote:
> 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:
>
>>> 
>>> 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).
>>
>>
>
> Maybe my point is being missed. There is a market for languages 
> that do what D does but where GC is not an option. D's better C 
> version is essentially what they need, so if you are happy to 
> cede that market to Jai/Zig and similar then fine.

That market exists because of GC-phobia.

https://www.ptc.com/en/products/developer-tools/perc

https://astrobe.com/Oberon.htm, https://astrobe.com/boards.htm

https://www.wildernesslabs.co/developers

https://www.f-secure.com/en/consulting/foundry/usb-armory

https://dotnet.microsoft.com/apps/games

All examples of products, whose authors just didn't care for the 
anti-GC crowd and pushed forward with their ideas.