On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 08:13:29PM +0200, Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] > The GDC camp concurs with the sentiment of betterC being a waste of > time. My particular stance on the matter is that it should not be an > all or nothing switch, granular control is fine. The compiler should > (and can!) produce a very small footprint whilst using the expressive > richness of the language. > > For instance, a D project targeting STM board, makes heavy use of > classes and templates, resultant code segment is 3k. > > https://github.com/JinShil/stm32f42_discovery_demo#the-good > > I quote the author here that when building the project, there is: > > """ > No Stinking -betterC. If you don't want the overhead of a certain > feature of D, don't use it. -betterC is just a synonymn for -worseD. > """
To be fair, though, the above-mentioned project did have to create a stub druntime in order to get things to work. Not everyone may have the know-how required to construct a minimal druntime that works for their purposes. T -- Those who've learned LaTeX swear by it. Those who are learning LaTeX swear at it. -- Pete Bleackley