On Sunday, 3 December 2017 at 12:20:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
It may indeed work to use a special druntime. My expectation, however, is that it's a lot more work trying to develop and support another runtime library, and a lot more work for the user trying to get that library worked into his build system.
It's pretty easy, actually, and you can then selectively opt into features by copying function implementations as you need them.
That said, I like the idea of betterC just working... as long as it doesn't break the opt-in option.
Meanwhile, we've got -betterC today, and it's simple and it works.
It is a bit simpler than the old way, but not that much... like other people have copy/pasted my minimal object.d into new projects and gotten it to work pretty easily. Downloading a file and compiling isn't much different than compiling with -betterC. (And actually, my minimal one gives you classes and exceptions if you want them too via -version! And is bare-metal compatible as well, which -betterC still needs a few little stubs to work on right now.)
So it is one thing to say "this is a bit more convenient", but don't say "this enables something D couldn't do before". The latter is patently false in all contexts, and in some of those contexts, further spreads FUD about druntime.
