manual memory management

[Rob T]

On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 16:12:22 UTC, mist wrote:
> How is D manual memory management any worse than plain C one?
> Plenty of language features depend on GC but stuff that is left 
> can hardly be named "a lousy excuse". It lacks some convenience 
> and guidelines based on practical experience but it is already 
> as capable as some of wide-spread solutions for systems 
> programming (C). In fact I'd be much more afraid of runtime 
> issues when doing system stuff than GC ones.

I think the point being made was that built in language features 
should not be dependent on the need for a GC because it means 
that you cannot fully use the language without a GC present and 
active. We can perhaps excuse the std library, but certainly not 
the language itself, because the claim is made that D's GC is 
fully optional.

--rt