On Thursday, 13 February 2014 at 06:51:37 UTC, 1100110 wrote:
On 2/11/14, 17:15, Mike wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 21:11:15 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 2/11/2014 11:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
(First off, I hate the name "better C", any suggestions?)
How about "EmbeddedD", though that wouldn't be entirely
accurate?
I program ONLY embedded systems in D and I very much dislike
the idea of
introducing a new name. There should be only one D , but
there's no
reason features couldn't be enabled/disabled with compiler
switches
(-fno-exceptions, -fno-rtti)
There's no reason to aggregate compiler switches into a single
name. I
f users want no exceptions, no gc, no objects, etc... then
they should
add -fno-exceptions, -fno-gc, -fno-objects, etc... to their
compiler flags.
Please, I beg you! No new names. Please don't fragment the
language.
Just make it a little more modular.
Mike
I agree, if this is strictly restricting the language to a core
subset, then I cant see it having any effect. If you don't
like it don't use it.
And this is the crux of the problem. For some, any change is bad
because they are happy and do not care about the rest. Simply
drawing a imaginary boundary inside d and labeling it "the core"
isn't much of a change... unless you hate change. (we can talk
about what to do with the core all day long but it is irrelevant
if we can't even draw the boundary because it freaks people out
and give them hemorrhoids and hard palpitations)
