D as A Better C?

[ed]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 22:01:01 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> ed:
>
>> The D compiler catches subtle bugs that creep into C code when 
>> deadlines are tight and the porting itself is great as a 
>> review process.
>
> Isn't using something Clang (plus eventually a static analyzer) 
> an even better strategy?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile

Absolutely :D

Our main focus has been to introduced D into our workplace. We've 
been converting a number of old die hard C programmers by showing 
them how much better the language is, even if one is just writing 
"C" in D. The bug catching was, however, a pleasant side-effect.

I think the transition to D in the embedded world would be 
quicker if it were possible to obtain a minimal D language that 
produces the smallest binaries possible.

Perhaps a good place to start would be with a formal grammar that 
defines what is the kernel of D and what is the D language proper.

Cheers,
ed