Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Frustrated]

On Monday, 3 February 2014 at 14:57:35 UTC, Frank Bauer wrote:
> On Monday, 3 February 2014 at 02:58:59 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> But D ticks all the boxes, except that one... and it's an 
>> important field
>> that isn't covered by the rest of the landscape of emerging or 
>> trendy
>> languages.
>>
>>>> I think it's also telling that newcomers constantly raise it 
>>>> as a massive
>>>> concern, or even a deal-breaker. Would they feel the same 
>>>> about ARC? I
>>>> seriously doubt it. I wonder if a poll is in order...
>
>
> Agree with Manu 100% there and the rest of his post as well. I 
> imagine standing in that little crowd he talked to.
>
> Anyone asking for the addition of ARC or owning pointers to D, 
> gets pretty much ignored. The topic is "Smart pointers instead 
> of GC?", remember? People here seem to be more interested in 
> diverting to nullable, scope and GC optimization. Telling, 
> indeed.
>
> And, yes, as I posted, I believe one could keep D's syntax 
> unchanged, including GC allocation via new, by changing the 
> memory regime under the hood and providing for ARCs and owning 
> pointers on top of GC. It would be a lot of work taking into 
> account storage classes, type construction, pointer interaction 
> and what not), I understand. But it would be better spent than 
> on more of the same garbage ... err ... collection.
>
> So it's a done deal, then? D didn't go all the way to become a 
> systems or highest performance language? Instead, it wants to 
> grab a piece of that Java / C# pie?
>
> Good luck with that. I don't think those guys are as open to 
> change as the C++ guys, also given the higher complexity (i.e. 
> richness) of D compared to C# / Java.
>
> IMHO, the D implementers should really reconsider what language 
> features they would like to concentrate on if they want to be 
> around in the years to come.

It's pure laziness. That is the hole point of AGC, right? So you
don't have to pay attention to what you are doing.

Just wait. Google is working on it! They are working on cars that
drive themselves so you don't have to. There is no way to
override it. Google decides where you need to go and how fast.
You have no say so in the matter and if you want to take the
scenic route then you'll just have to get out and walk(from a
moving car BTW). If it so happens there is construction work and
you gotta take a detour, well, tell that to the judge or your
insurance company... it's not googles fault for not making the
car smart enough or giving you alternatives(remember, you are too
stupid to know anything).