Why are the nogc crowed labeled as alarmists?!?!

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 13:53:14 UTC, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl 
wrote:
> On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 13:17:34 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:13:18 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
>>> Are those that say the GC is fine and works for 90-95% of 
>>> apps without issue just ignorant? Or are they arrogant?
>>>
>>> When one is writing a real time app and have the absolute 
>>> lowest chance of losing control, a STW GC is simply not 
>>> allowed in this apps.
>>
>> D works fine without GC for me. What problems do you have?
>
> For me also.
> The cool thing about D is:
> You can use it like a script-language at first, and GC (+all 
> the other nice features like unit tests, asserts etc) keep you 
> from bothering with stupit bugs and implementation details that 
> are only relevant for maximum performance.
>
> And afterwards, if it comes to RT (real-time), the first thing 
> I throw out is all that MMI stuff (man-machine-interface), e.g. 
> everything dealing with strings. And thats about 98% of all 
> functions that use GC in my code. The very little rest is 
> things like exceptions, delegates and closures - because I have 
> no idea how to use them with manual memory management. So 
> unfortunately I have to avoid them in RT code.
>
> But what remains is anyway far, far, better than what C 
> offered. And to make that clear: nothing else was usable for 
> embedded programming before D. No C++, no Java, nothing at all.

Ada and Modula-2?