Why does D rely on a GC?

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 at 17:11:21 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> This is why I won't bother investing any time in it for a few 
>> more years at least. It may have really cool language 
>> features, big development team and famous names behind it but 
>> in terms of compiler maturity it is still a very long road to 
>> go until it gets even to DMD capabilities.
>
> I won't look at it again for a different reason. They're the 
> types that say "A monad is just a monoid in the category of 
> endofunctors, what's the problem?" but they're serious.
>
> My last interaction with Rust was when I commented that 
> adoption would be hurt if they require an understanding of the 
> memory model just to get started, to which they responded more 
> or less that it's not a big deal. At that point I concluded the 
> language was lost. I can only imagine what it will look like in 
> five years.

Actually I also don't think it is a big deal. Yes, it is crucial 
blocker for any "casual" adoption and will like to prevent its 
adoption in web service domain, for example (in a way similar to 
vibe.d) - but language has never been designed for such use 
cases. It is for complicated projects with non-trivial 
performance requirements and there is certain point of complexity 
where educating hired programmers about  category theory may be 
cheaper than dealing with maintenance in overly lax language.

It does look like a niche language but a very good one in 
declared niche.