U++ Core vs D programming language

[Georg Wrede]

Jason House wrote:
> Poking around the U++ web site, I spotted this page: 
> http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vsd$en-us.html
> 
> It says "C++ is still well ahead of D (by 70%) if not being hold back
> by standard library design and average implementation..."

http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$overview$en-us.html
says:

> Everything belongs somewhere
> 
> In Ultimate++, most objects are bound to some logical scope. As a
> result, you will not see many new operators in code using Ultimate++
> and almost no delete operators outside the implementation of
> containers.
> 
> That of course does not mean you are not allowed to use pointers, but
> it is good practice to use pointers just to point to things, never to
> manage heap resources. This also avoids all confusion regarding
> ownership of the underlying object, time of its deletion etc. If you
> need to manage data sets of variable size or polymorphic type, you
> should prefer using one of Ultimate++ containers.
> 
> Speaking about it, there are no shared smart pointers (like
> boost::shared_ptr) in Ultimate++ used to manage heap resources at
> interface level. They are not needed and considered bad practice.

And here comes the point:

> In C++, this approach proves to be equally good or better than
> garbage collected languages like Java or C#. While those languages
> are able to provide automatic management of heap resources, U++
> approach provides very deterministic automatic management of all
> resources.

What should I tell people who quote the last paragraph?