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

[jackdeath via Digitalmars-d]

:)) how true

On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 14:25:54 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> 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?