C++, D: Dinosaurs?

[Daniel de Kok]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:48:41 -0600, Tony wrote:
> breakers for some (a lot?) of software. That's why I think GC should be
> an opt-in rather than an opt-out choice. That's a key characteristic of
> C++: opt-in. And I really, really like that level of creative freedom.

That's not necessarily good. There are now multiple commonly-used methods 
for pointing to instances in C++: plain pointers, references, and smart 
pointers, all with different usage and semantics. It's a burden for 
library writers and library users. An opt-in GC only makes the burden 
heavier.

In contrast, most GC-ed languages make life simpler not requiring a 
plethora of alternate management/lifetime schemes.

Take care,
Daniel