On Saturday, 29 November 2014 at 14:40:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
<snip>
With a big standard library you get this effect:
big monolithic standard library -> other libraries build on it
-> many libraries are unsuitable for more restricted
applications
big monolithic standard library -> hard to keep bug free,
performant and makes language changes more difficult
What you want is this:
tight standard library -> other libraries build on it if they
can-> more libraries are suitable for all applications
tight standard library -> high degree of stability -> less
breakage of other libraries
tight standard library -> better results for library-aware
optimizations
<snip>
+1
Clearly D is not a "better C", it's a "better C++/Java". You
can use D as a "better C" but this needs some adaptation, both
for you and the libraries.
<snip>
It is a bit of false advertising to on website promote D as
better C, when the efforts are that it is a better C++/Java/CLR.
(and I think you can do both w/ a split).
