Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Frank Bauer]

On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 09:27:18 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> For the vast majority of use cases, a GC is the right call and 
> D has to cater to the majority if it wants to gain any 
> significant mindshare at all. You don't grow by increasing 
> specialization...

So catering to the C++ crowd who shun Java and C# not so much for 
JITing their code but precisely for their forced use of a GC is a 
"minority" issue then? Again, please take those of us more 
serious who don't like a GC to interfere with their business and 
if it's only for "programming hygiene" reasons. As you consider 
handling low latency requirements undue "specialisation" anyways.

On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 12:04:56 UTC, JR wrote:
> To my uneducated eyes, an ARC collector does seem like the 
> near-ideal solution

ARC would be a plus for heavily interdependent code. But it 
doesn't beat unique_ptr semantics in local use that free their 
memory immediately as they go out of scope or are reassigned.

> I would *dearly* love to have concurrency in whatever we end up 
> with, though. For a multi-core personal computer threads are 
> free lunches, or close enough so.

No they are not. I want to make good use of all the cores I have 
available and I don't want to share them a bit with the GC. It's 
myyy ... precious.

As you may have guessed, my criticism is harsh because I love the 
language :)