On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 04:17:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 02:30:55 UTC, Pie? wrote:
Duh! The claim is made that D can work without the GC... but
that's a red herring... If you take about the GC what do you
have?
Like 90% of the language, still generally nicer than most the
competition.
Though, I wish D would just own its decision instead of bowing
to Reddit pressure. GC is a proven success in the real world
with a long and impressive track record. Yes, there are times
when you need to optimize your code, but even then you aren't
really worse off with it than without it.
The problem is that D is targeted as a multi-paradigm systems
programming language, and while it's largely successful at that,
the GC doesn't fit in with that domain by nature of its existence.
There's no problem with _having_ a GC, it just shouldn't be the
default case for what's meant to be a systems language,
especially when language and standard library features become
dependent upon it.
But I digress: we've had this debate before, we're having it now,
and we'll keep having it well into the future :-)
