C++17

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 20:40:50 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:04:33 +0000, rsw0x wrote:
>> GC in D is a pipedream, if it wasn't, why is it still so 
>> horrible? Everyone keeps dancing around the fact that if the 
>> GC wasn't horrible, nobody would work around it.
>
> Rather, if everyone believed the GC was awesome in all 
> circumstances, nobody would work around it. It could be awesome 
> in all circumstances, but if people believe otherwise, they'll 
> try working around it. It could be generally awesome but bad 
> for a certain use case, in which case people who need to 
> support that use case will need to work around it.
>
> In this case, I think it's a marketing issue, not a technical 
> one. D's being marketed as an alternative to C++, and existing 
> C++ users tend to believe that any garbage collector is too 
> slow to be usable.

In any case where you attempt to write code in D that is equal in 
performance to C++, you must avoid the GC.
Either stop advertising D as an alternative to C++ or do 
something about this, because as it stands it's dishonest to say 
that D achieves the same performance as C++ when hiding the 
asterisk that is "when you abandon 90% of the standard library 
and much of the core language itself while jumping through hoops"