4 ms·

This begs two questions, it seems to me: 1. Would it make sense to work on (for the community in general, not necessarily you personally) a header only standar

This begs two questions, it seems to me: 1. Would it make sense to work on (for the community in general, not necessarily you personally) a header only standard library, a sane STL if you will, for betterC? 2. Is there any interest in language support for GC and runtime independent classes/interfaces? I understand this is partly doable already by abusing templates, but I imagine the results aren't necessarily pretty or concise. Regardless, thanks a lot for the responses. I haven't managed to write much D beyond small experiments due to ecosystem and related issues, but the ability to incrementally integrate small parts of D in a C++ codebase as freely as betterC lets me is very tempting.

WalterBright 8y ago
> Would it make sense to work on (for the community in general, not necessarily you personally) a header only standard library, a sane STL if you will, for betterC? It's a very good question. Most of Phobos is already templates or the GC, so that wouldn't be much change. A more complex problem is working without exceptions. I don't have a ready answer for that, it's a good area for investigation. D already has support for "COM" classes/interfaces which work in BetterC.
acehreli 8y ago
Weka has recently open-sourced their no-GC library Mecca: https://github.com/weka-io/mecca https://github.com/weka-io/mecca Here is Shachar Shemesh's introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNWRgEHxOhc&feature=youtu.be&t=765 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNWRgEHxOhc&feature=youtu.be...