Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[John Gabriele]

On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 16:17:33 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
> On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 15:23:51 UTC, Russel Winder 
> wrote:
>> I think we are now in a world where Rust is the zero cost 
>> abstraction language to replace C and C++, except for those 
>> who are determined to stay with C++ and evolve it.
>
> Why should we settle for this ? D code (efortless) is easier to 
> read then Rust. I assume this to be true for a lot of 
> programmers who know C/C++. It also introperates very well with 
> C, which is great boon, since at low level we live on the 
> shoulder of a titan written in C.  It has tremnedous features, 
> and ironically the best of them could have been designed to not 
> relay on GC. As most , if not all, of the features offered by 
> its library could have been done with no GC.
>
>>
>> D, like Go, should glory in having a GC and just go with it.
>>
>> Of course this does not mean the GC as is is good enough. Go 
>> is on its
>> third I believe, and Java on it's fifth.
>
> A good implementation at library level of GC would mean that I 
> can use one single language
> in all areas of system programming. Or at least, a 
> implementation where std:: and core features of language should 
> not relay on GC. This, IMO is an advantage not to be neglected. 
> A better C mode with a very powerfull high level standard 
> library (like std:: ), exceptions, RAII, classes (yes, why not 
> ) typeid would be a very big step ahead. All those could be 
> done without having to worry about existence of GC. C++ has all 
> those.
>
> IMO the key here is the standard libray of the language. 
> Nothing in it should relay  on the existence of GC. Why, why, 
> does it have to depend on GC and hence automatically disqualify 
> itself from a better C world ? The C runtime ezposed by core is 
> powerfull, but imagine having std:: power in better C as well. 
> I really lament this.
>
> You could have the best of the two worlds.

Regarding GC being built into the core language, from [the D 
faq](https://dlang.org/faq.html):

"**Can't garbage collection be done in C++ with an add-on 
library?**

Yes, I use one myself. It isn't part of the language, though, and 
requires some subverting of the language to make it work. Using 
gc with C++ isn't for the standard or casual C++ programmer. 
Building it into the language, like in D, makes it practical for 
everyday programming chores."

I'm new to D. Coming primarily from Python these days, I'm 
looking at D not as a better C++ (haven't used that in many 
years), but as a better Python.