Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Thomas Mader]

On Wednesday, 20 December 2017 at 09:16:34 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 20.12.2017 09:30, Thomas Mader wrote:
>> Interestingly he doesn't know about D
>
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7724

Haven't read that one but it just shows it:

"Since I’ve mentioned D, I suppose this is also the point at 
which I should explain why I don’t see it as a serious contender 
to replace C. Yes, it was spun up eight years before Rust and 
nine years before Go – props to Walter Bright for having the 
vision. But in 2001 the example of Perl and Python had already 
been set – the window when a proprietary language could compete 
seriously with open source was already closing. The wrestling 
match between the official D library/runtime and Tango hurt it, 
too. It has never recovered from those mistakes."

So he doesn't know about the current state of D and I was 
referring to the following comment from 
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804:

">Eric, have you looked into D *lately*?

No. What’s it got that Go does not?

That’s not intended as a hostile question, I’m trying to figure 
out where to focus my attention when I read up on it."

What I don't get is why he doesn't believe in good GC for C (my 
previous post) but at the same time praising Go for it's GC.
What makes it easier to have a good GC in Go vs. in C?
I guess the GC in D has the same problems as a GC in C.