The "no gc" crowd

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 23:22:54 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Walter Bright
>> This, of course, is the other problem with @nogc. Having a 
>> forest of attributes on otherwise ordinary functions is 
>> awfully ugly.
>
> And we already have a forest of attributes on otherwise 
> ordinary functions.

I don't understand why there is such reluctance to have many 
attributes. I'd gladly accept language with literally hundreds of 
those if they are orthogonal and useful. That is the very point 
of using strong typed language - making compiler verify as much 
assumptions as possible for you. Key problem here is not amount 
of attributes but that those are opt-in, not opt-out,