On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:23:05AM +0100, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote: > 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. >
Go is the perfect example here. The traction that Go has and D has not doesn't come from GC or not, it comes from accessible documentation, easy installation, good libraries and community support. New developerse will give a language 10-60min max, if it is compelling and you feel productive and decently fast then you are set. sure there are outlines where you watn to replace C++ or C, but those areas are much harder to get traction on due to dependencies in the existing architecture and a (correctly so) risk-aversity.