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


Those who've learned LaTeX swear by it. Those who are learning LaTeX swear at 
it. -- Pete Bleackley

Reply via email to