On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 14:02:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 13:24:14 UTC, Chris wrote:
I bet you that if D hadn't had GC when it first came out,
people would've mentioned manual memory management as a reason
not to use GC. I never claimed that D was _propelled_ by GC,
but that it was a feature that most users would expect. Not
having it would probably have done more harm than having it.
Actually, I am certain that GC is a feature that _nobody_ would
expect from a system level language, outside the Go-crowd.
Most certainly from a multi-purpose language. GC would have been
demanded sooner or later. The mistake was not to make it optional
from the beginning.
You focus on a small niche where people use all kinds of
performance tricks even in C and C++. A lot of software doesn't
care about GC overheads, however, and without GC a lot of people
wouldn't even have considered it.
By the way, have you ever designed a language, I'd love to see
how it would look like ;)
Most programmers have designed DSL, so yes, obviously. If you
are talking about a general purpose language then I wouldn't
want to announce it until I was certain I got the basics right,
like memory management.
Go ahead, I'm sure it's fun. ;)
