D is crap

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 14:02:09 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 13:24:14 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> I bet you that if D hadn't had GC when it first came out, 
>> people would've mentioned manual memory management as a reason 
>> not to use GC. I never claimed that D was _propelled_ by GC, 
>> but that it was a feature that most users would expect. Not 
>> having it would probably have done more harm than having it.
>
> Actually, I am certain that GC is a feature that _nobody_ would 
> expect from a system level language, outside the Go-crowd.

Most certainly from a multi-purpose language. GC would have been 
demanded sooner or later. The mistake was not to make it optional 
from the beginning.

You focus on a small niche where people use all kinds of 
performance tricks even in C and C++. A lot of software doesn't 
care about GC overheads, however, and without GC a lot of people 
wouldn't even have considered it.

>> By the way, have you ever designed a language, I'd love to see 
>> how it would look like ;)
>
> Most programmers have designed DSL, so yes, obviously. If you 
> are talking about a general purpose language then I wouldn't 
> want to announce it until I was certain I got the basics right, 
> like memory management.

Go ahead, I'm sure it's fun. ;)