On Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 12:16:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
I feel that the same is for the reverse too. If you remove
features,
you again enter the realm of being another language.
Yes, but would a business care? What they care about is
productivity and risk assessment. Going with a reduced feature
set means they can move to open source D later on. So the risk is
low.
You also have source-to-source compilation as an alternative
(introduce new features, but provide source-to-source utility to
mitigate perceived risk).
There may be many implementation details that you can omit or
improve,
such as how you go about dealing with closures, moduleinfo,
thread-local GC - but features listed in the D specification
are not optional.
It is optional until you have an installed base. Specifications
mean nothing unless it is backed up with a valuable (for the
business) corpus that depends on it.
For a game developer the features used by the selected third
party physics engine means more than what the C++11 standard
says...
