Garbage Collector?

bachmeier via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Apr 29 03:54:02 PDT 2017


On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 19:49:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 17:48:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>> On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 17:42:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>>> I'm hoping to put all information in one place. Then when 
>>> someone on Reddit or HN or here starts making claims about 
>>> the GC, I can give them one link that shows all of their 
>>> options.
>>
>> That's nice. Just get your hopes up for it having an effect.
>
> Typo, I meant "don't"... Sloppy of me. Documentation is nice, 
> but:
>
> 1. People will complain that it isn't possible.
>
> 2. When possible people will complain that it isn't in the 
> standard library.
>
> 3. When in "std" people will complain that not enough libraries 
> use it.
>
> 4. When libraries use it people will complain that it doesn't 
> work with older libs.
>
> 5. When older libs have been rewritten to support it they will 
> complain that it is better in Rust and C++ and not compatible 
> with Rust and C++.
>
> Anyway, my main point is that programmers coming from such 
> languages will most certainly complain if it isn't in the 
> standard library because of interoperability between libraries, 
> but that is basically just the bottom of the hill that you have 
> to climb to get to a level where people stop complaining.

Many invested in Rust and C++ will look for arguments to support 
staying with their language. I've come to the conclusion that the 
D community is mostly to blame for not making a good case to the 
other group that are open to D, but for technical reasons or 
simply personal preference don't like GC, that D is still an 
option. There's no excuse for not making it easy to evaluate 
one's options for GC-less programming if we support that style of 
programming.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list