The "no gc" crowd

[evilrat]

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 15:43:46 UTC, ponce wrote:
> Yet with D the situation is different and I feel that criticism 
> is way overblown:
> - first of all, few people will have problems with GC in D at 
> all
> - then minimizing allocations can usually solve most of the 
> problems
> - if it's still a problem, the GC can be completely disabled, 
> relevant language features avoided, and there will be no GC 
> pause
> - this work of avoiding allocations would happen anyway in a 
> C++ codebase
> - I happen to have a job with some hardcore optimized C++ 
> codebase and couldn't care less that a GC would run provided 
> there is a way to minimize GC usage (and there is)
>
> Whatever rational rebutal we have it's never heard.
> The long answer is that it's not a real problem. But it seems 
> people want a short answer. It's also an annoying fight to have 
> since so much of it is based on zero data.
>
> Is there a plan to have a standard counter-attack to that kind 
> of overblown problems?
> It could be just a solid blog post or a @nogc feature.

i have never bothered about D GC(nor C# or others 
implementations), maybe that's just because i don't have that 
high memory/performance constraints, but still i definitely would 
start with GC and then work for minimize allocations... just 
because it allows focus on code more than memory management, and 
thus should give much better productivity and quality.