Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Dan Partelly]

On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 12:13:39 UTC, Emma Watson wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 12:21:19 UTC, I Love Stuffing 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>>> "C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
>>>
>>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
>>
>> I'm still not sure why this precludes GC from just being a 
>> standard library feature vs. a language feature. D is probably 
>> better prepared than other languages in doing that cleanly.
>
> Probably this one could be the answer

I believe so, yes. GC should be a library feature, std library of 
the language should be independent of existence of a garbage 
collector, and the language itself should not contain features 
which are dependent of the existence of a garbage collector. 
(strings, maps, unbounded arrays all should have been part of 
standard lib IMO and not part of the core language and dependent 
of GC.

I wanted to look at D as a "beter C++", with simple and sane 
metaprograming and metaligusitic features.  It is almost there, 
but unfortunately, not 0 cost abstraction without loosing too 
much. You depend too much of having garbage collection active. It 
works as a "betterC" it seems, but you loose a lot of 
functionality which should be in a "better C" and again, a lot 
from the standard libraries is lost. Template C++ 2017 works well 
for a better C as well, and I retain 0 cost abstraction, decent 
(yet inferior to D meta-programming), closures,
exceptions, scopes...

Perhaps Im wrong, I only play with D by several days.