== Quote from bearophile (bearophileh...@lycos.com)'s article > Andrei: > > It might not a good use of our time to further engage in a diatribe on this. > Just a note: you have not wasted your time discussing this, because I am not expert on such matters, so I learn something from informed discussions :-) > If a book that explains C language is just 200 pages long, a book that > explains the design purpose, design constraints and design compromises of every feature of C language requires a much longer book (800 pages?), and it's probably also much more interesting :-) > Bye, > bearophile
As one of those who were the most reluctant about abandoning delete, I have come to realize that it is better to make D classes strictly garbage collected, and drop delete. It should be noted that D supports RAII, as long as one uses struct (thus avoiding dynamic polymorphism, which shouldn't make a big difference once you think about it), and this gives D an important semantic separation lacking in C++ (or even those languages on the other side of the fence such as Java, for that matter). Making a habit of declaring struct instead of class when I intend to create "objects" on the stack instead of the heap, while resorting to garbage collected classes when it makes sense to do so, has made my life simpler. I do believe, however, that there is a recurrent communication error going on here. I would kindly ask the language designers to please update the documentation and write an article explaining the advantages of the approach (without making the mistake of turning it into a blind praise of garbage collection, that is). Newcomers need to know how to obtain garbage collected or RAII data structures from D, whenever they want to.
