D Language 2.0

[BCS]

Hello bearophile,

> BCS:
> 
>>> A better strategy is first of all to improve a lot the D GC, if
>>> 
>> That's true regardless :)
>> 
> I don't agree, because that idea of mine can be wrong :-)
> 
> What I was saying is that first you improve the GC performance (if
> necessary modifying the language too) and you don't write parts of
> Phobos designed to not use the GC. And few years later (when there's
> already some amount of D2 code in the wild that uses the GC) when
> improving the GC is not possible anymore then you try to squeeze the
> lemon some more avoiding to use the GC :-)
> 

I'm not following. Improving the GC (without changing the language) benefits 
everyone who uses it and hurts no one.

Also, I'm puzzled as to why anyone would be opposed to having parts of phobos 
that don't use the GC. I could see a point if someone wanted to make something 
that wouldn't work if you DO have the GC running or if it required some ugly 
hacks to get rid of it but I don't think that's what anyone is talking about.

> Bye,
> bearophile