Clarification on D.

[bachmeier via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 11:52:42 UTC, thedeemon wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 20:00:54 UTC, aberba wrote:
>> From a technical and experience point of view (those with 
>> experience in large D code-base), how is only D's GC & 
>> optional MMM a significant production-use blocker?
>
> This is mostly a psychological effect of C++ folks having 
> aversion to any GC.

It is interesting to have watched this debate over the years. 
Bjarne S. responded to the Java crowd by embracing the GC. He 
still has on his FAQ: "If you want automatic garbage collection, 
there are good commercial and public-domain garbage collectors 
for C++. For applications where garbage collection is suitable, 
C++ is an excellent garbage collected language with a performance 
that compares favorably with other garbage collected languages."