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

[Mike Capp]

John Reimer wrote:

> Huh?  I'm not following.  I said it's unfair that
> C++ users frequently see D as GC-only.  Your
> response seems to indicate that this is not unfair,
> but I can't determine your line of reasoning.

I may be being naive.

There's a difference between "a D program CAN ONLY allocate memory on the GC heap"
and "a D program WILL allocate memory on the GC heap".

The first statement is plain wrong, and once you point out that malloc is still
available there's not much to discuss, so I can't believe that this is what C++
users have a problem with.

The second statement is technically wrong, but only if you carefully avoid certain
language features and don't use the standard library.

Hence, if you don't want GC (because of concerns about pausing, or working-set
footprint, or whatever) then you're not using the language as it was intended to
be used. GC and GC-less approaches are not on an equal footing.

> I'm sorry, Mike.  What post are you saying I'm
> applauding?  I can't see how relating my applauding
> to the conclusion in that sentence makes any
> sense.  Is there something implied or did you mean
> to point something out?

Steve Horne's post -
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=44644
- which I thought you were agreeing with. If I misread or got muddled about
attribution, apologies.

My point was just this: regardless of whether GC-less D is a reasonable thing to
want, if you take the attitude that it's not worth supporting then it's hard to
see why a C++ users' perception of D as "GC whether you want it or not" is unfair.