More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/1/14, 5:04 AM, w0rp wrote:
> Removing class destructors would break my DQt library as it currently
> stands, which wraps C++ classes with D classes, Qt uses classes for
> polymorphism, for protected overrides and slots. I would have to
> consider some other means of wrapping C++. It might also be confusing
> for a few people.
>
> So, having said that... I am completely in favour of removing class
> destructors. It's a simple principle. When you have to do less work,
> things can run faster. So I can see removing class destructors as a
> feature leading to reduced pause times. Destructors exist only for
> resource management. Doing resource management through GC... is a bad idea.

I've decided what I'll do. I'll implement both and let the user choose. 
Push policy up, implementation down! -- Andrei