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

[Dave]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> BCS 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.
> 
> Having such a library would make a huge difference in every C++ vs D 
> discussion! The opposition would have a lot less ammunition against us.

But the whole concern centers around two canards: a) GC is really slow and b) malloc/free offer 
deterministic performance for real-time appplications.

I actually think that the best defense is dispelling those two myths. a) for D will come in time and 
b) is just plain not true for general purpose malloc/free implementations on modern operating systems.