On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 06:24 +0000, Mithun Hunsur via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […]
> 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. No. As evidence I give you Go. The whole "it's a systems programming language so it cannot have GC" is just so wrong in 2016 (as it was in 2004). Having a GC for a time critical real-time streaming application is probably a bad idea, so turn GC off for that. D can do that. D having a GC is not the problem, the problem is the D community agamizing about a wrong issue instead of focusing on the real one: when to switch the GC off. > But I digress: we've had this debate before, we're having it now, > and we'll keep having it well into the future :-) If the D community does continue to debate this, then D really will die as a language. This is a dead issue. It has gone to the debating hall in the sky. It is an ex-issue. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part