On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 20:42:26 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
(First off, I hate the name "better C", any suggestions?)
A different name is needed.
I don't think a different name is needed, nor do I think it would
be a good idea. All that's needed are a few compiler switches to
enable/disable features so D can be used on more platforms. GNU
g++ does this without giving it a new name (e.g. -fno-exceptions,
-fno-rtti, etc...) D can do the same without giving it a new
name.
What do you think?
It must produce very small binaries.
If you import anything from Phobos it will not work in most
cases, even if the feature you are importing does not require
GC, druntime, etc, because in most cases other parts of the
Phobos module use them. Is this going to cause a fragmentation
of Phobos?
What to do with dynamic array literals? In many cases they
allocate. A partial solution is to use the [...]s syntax for
fixed size array literals.
Constant associative arrays at global scope don't need the GC,
but they need the druntime, so I guess they too need to be
disallowed.
Bye,
bearophile
I don't consider Phobos part of thE D language, just part of the
D ecosystem. If one disables features on which phobos depends,
and phobos doesn't work, that's what they deserve.
In time, however, phobos could be ported to more limited systems
that don't have certain D features, but that's such a long term
goal right now. I wouldn't even worry about it until the runtime
is brought to those platforms first.
Mike
