Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/3/14, 6:57 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I thought I made it clear that GC avoidance (which includes considering  
> built-in reference counting) is a major focus of 2014.
>
> Andrei
>

Andrei, I am sorry to report that anything other than complete removal of  
the GC and replacement with compiler generated ARC will be unacceptable to  
a certain, highly vocal, subset of D users. No arguments can be made to  
otherwise, regardless of validity. As far as they are concerned the  
discussion of ARC vs. GC is closed and decided. ARC is the only path  
forward to the bright and glorious future of D. ARC most efficiently  
solves all memory management problems ever encountered. Peer-Reviewed  
Research and the Scientific Method be damned! ALL HAIL ARC!

Sadly, although written as hyperbole, I feel that the above is fairly  
close to the actual position of the ARC crowd.

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator