Using D without libphobos

[A. Nicholi]

On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 00:21:51 UTC, sarn wrote:
> I think you've got the technical answer already (just don't 
> link in phobos2) but I'll add my 2c that Phobosless programming 
> isn't just possible but realistically doable.  It's a shame to 
> go without Phobos because it's got so much higher-level 
> functionality, but if you're okay with writing things from the 
> ground up in C-like code, it works.  Most third-party D 
> libraries depend on Phobos, though, so it's mostly DIY and 
> using bindings to other languages.

Right, that’s the plan for the program itself. Even without D we 
would be talking to services as directly as possible, and third 
party libraries would come in as C code and be tweaked to work 
in-house. Performance is paramount with this, which is why I was 
so pleased to find out about the ‘-betterC’ switch in 
development, even though we may have gotten by with a minimal D 
runtime. The ecosystem at work here is really something else :)

On Friday, 27 April 2018 at 00:21:51 UTC, sarn wrote:
> Have a look at the standard library here:
> https://dlang.org/phobos/index.html
>
> Basically, all the std.* is Phobos, and most of the core.* 
> stuff needs linking with the D runtime library. However, 
> there's a bunch of bindings to standard C stuff in core.stdc.* 
> that only need the C runtime and standard library, and these 
> come in really handy when you're not using Phobos.  (There are 
> more platform-specific C bindings in core.sys.* that aren't 
> listed on that page.)  Also, there are some other things in 
> core.bitop and core.atomic (probably more) that don't need 
> linking to druntime.

Right. So there isn’t anything in core.* that would be in 
libphobos, only D runtime? And std.* depends on both, that is 
correct? Just want to be sure there aren’t edge cases or 
exceptions, it would be a handy rule of thumb.