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

[Lutger]

Dave wrote:
> 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.

Although I don't think these are big problems, I'm not convinced myself 
that they are myths.

As for the slow GC getting fixed, I hope that will come but it still is 
a valid point in response to the idea that D is usable *right now*, and 
it will be when D get's the 1.0 label. To say the problem will be fixed 
doesn't mean it is not there.

The point about deterministic memory allocation (as in realtime) may be 
a myth, but a lot of C++ argue that C++ has a lot more means to control 
memory allocation, not just the C way of malloc/free.
Boost offers some allocators that can be used with the STL out of the 
box, for instance. Techniques of resource management based on scope is 
just better supported in C++ (not in C!) than in D. I see no myth in 
that point, it's just a different way of handling the poblem. Well this 
is actually a different point than you adressed but it is raised sometimes.