Why does D rely on a GC?

[Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d]

>> 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?"
>
>
> Sure, so one should point out that problem may be made out to be that the
> monoidal product [1][2] is underspecified for someone unfamiliar with the
> convention (in this case it should be given by composition of endofunctors,
> and the associator is given pointwise by identity morphisms). (But of
> course, the more fundamental problem is actually that this characterization
> is not abstract enough and hence harder to decipher than necessary. A monad
> can be defined in an arbitrary bicategory... :o) )
>
> What do /you/ think is the problem?

I remember finding this while exploring Haskell, some years ago:

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Zygohistomorphic_prepromorphisms

And thinking: Ah, I get it, it's a joke: they know they are considered
a bunch of strangely mathematically-influenced developers, but they
have a sense of humor and know how to be tongue-in-cheek and have
gentle fun at themselves. (My strange free association was: Zygo =>
zygomatics muscle => smile & laughter => joke).

That actually got me interested in Haskell :)
But, apparently, I was all wrong ;-) It got me reading entire books on
category theory and type theory, though.