On Monday, December 25, 2017 11:18:58 Joakim via Digitalmars-d wrote: > To clarify Mike's point, the dmd backend was taken from the > existing dmc C/C++ compiler, which started in the '80s. It > wasn't written in D because D didn't exist back then! The > backend could be turned into normal GC'ed D, but Walter still > supports dmc and I guess it's easier to just port it all to > betterC D.
Using betterC, it's fairly easy to port a program over in a piecemeal manner, whereas that's a royal pain if you're using the full language and druntime. Once the port to D is completed, then normal D can be used without problems. Honestly, I don't think that there's really any reason to use betterC for most programs, but it does make calling D from C much easier, so folks who are in an environment where they need to call D from C/C++ may want to use betterC to make that more reasonable (though at the cost of a number of useful language features). I expect that there will be some indivuals who will latch onto betterC for one reason or another, but I also expect that the vast majority of D programmers aren't going to want to put up with its restrictions. Personally, I don't see much point in using D if I'm going to be restricted to betterC. At that point, I'd much rather just use C++. I might port something using betterC, but that's the most that I'd ever consider. I actually want a fully featured language, and D without a runtime is doomed to be severely crippled even if it doesn't have to be quite as crippled as it is now. - Jonathan M Davis
