So what exactly is coming with extended C++ support?

[Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 20:41:25 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 04:48 AM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
>> On Monday, 29 September 2014 at 20:15:06 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>> On Monday, 29 September 2014 at 10:00:27 UTC, Szymon Gatner 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that all it would take? Do you also need a GC-free standard
>>> library, which seems to be the need of all the others saying 
>>> "do this
>>> and I'll switch from C++"? Are the tools good enough?
>>
>> Considered how many games (and I don't mean indie anymore, but 
>> for
>> example Blizzard's Heartstone) are now created in Unity which 
>> uses not
>> only GC but runs in Mono I am very skeptical of anybody 
>> claiming GC is a
>> no-go for games.
>
> The whole "Unity3D == Mono" thing is a somewhat inaccurate 
> misconception.
>
> Unity3D's engine (ie, the real workhorse of any Unity3D game) 
> is written in plain old native C++. So not *necessarily* GC 
> (though they might still use one internally, I wouldn't know).
>
> Only the game-specific scripts (and I *think* the Unity3D 
> Editor) actually run on Mono. And even then, the game scripts 
> *are* able to call into C-linkage stuff, which *is* 
> occasionally done to work around performance issues within game 
> scripts.
>
> Also, I imagine Mono's GC is probably quite a bit better than 
> D's currently is.

Yeah, but on the other hand there are quite a few small studios 
living off Air, LibGDX/jMonkeyEngine and XNA/MonoGame.

Which is an area where D could also appeal to indies.

One needs to start somewhere.

--
Paulo