OSNews article about C++09 degenerates into C++ vs. D discussion

[John Reimer]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:59:19 -0800, BCS <BCS at pathilink.com> wrote:

> Mars wrote:
>> http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16526
>
>
> One issue brought up is that of D "requiring" the use of a GC.
> What would it take to prove that wrong by making a full blown standard  
> lib that doesn't use a GC, and in fact doesn't have a GC?
>
> It would be painful to work with but no more so than in C++. OTOH with  
> scope() and such, it might be easy.
>
> Anyway, just a thought.


Honestly, first we have to settle on a standard library, which I'm not so  
sure Phobos is at this point (now that would be a valid criticism from the  
outside). :P

As for a non-gc based library, it might be a useful experiment; but  
otherwise, I don't see the motivation for that (other than, I guess, for  
those very special cases); that said, I wouldn't mind seeing a minimalist  
one implemented, maybe based off of Ares?

Note, however, that C++ users, many who have grown dependent on manual  
memory management, are looking for a reason to fault D.  I've actually  
heard cases where C++ users lambast GC based languages: use of a GC  
apparently creates "bad programming practices" -- imagine the laziness of  
not cleaning up after yourself!

People are locked in a whole way of thinking, and you can't really fight  
it unless they're willing to open up their perspective.

-JJR