An idea for commercial support for D

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 12:16:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I feel that the same is for the reverse too.  If you remove 
> features,
> you again enter the realm of being another language.

Yes, but would a business care? What they care about is 
productivity and risk assessment. Going with a reduced feature 
set means they can move to open source D later on. So the risk is 
low.

You also have source-to-source compilation as an alternative 
(introduce new features, but provide source-to-source utility to 
mitigate perceived risk).

> There may be many implementation details that you can omit or 
> improve,
> such as how you go about dealing with closures, moduleinfo,
> thread-local GC - but features listed in the D specification 
> are not optional.

It is optional until you have an installed base. Specifications 
mean nothing unless it is backed up with a valuable (for the 
business) corpus that depends on it.

For a game developer the features used by the selected third 
party physics engine means more than what the C++11 standard 
says...