On 23 August 2017 at 19:44, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-announce <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 13:12:04 Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-
> announce wrote:
>> To coincide with the improvements to -betterC in the upcoming DMD
>> 2.076, Walter has published a new article on the D blog about
>> what it is and why to use it. A fun read. And I'm personally
>> happy to see the love this feature is getting. I have a project
>> I'd like to use it with if I can ever make the time for it!
>> The blog:
> I confess that I tend to think of betterC as a waste of time. Clearly, there
> are folks who find it useful, but it loses so much that I see no point in
> using it for anything unless I have no choice. As long as attempts to
> improve it don't negatively impact normal D, then I don't really care what
> happens with it, but it's clearly not for me.
> And it _is_ possible to use full-featured D from C/C++ when D does not
> control main. It's just more of a pain.
It's getting better, there are certainly some tough topics that need
to be addressed in the compiler implementation.
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.
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.