A betterC base

[bachmeier]

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 17:03:58 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 14:56:31 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
> wrote:
>> ooh better last sentence
>>
>>
>> D's GC implementation follows in the footsteps of industry 
>> giants without compromising experts' ability to realize 
>> maximum potential from the machine.
>
> If D had a decent garbage collector it might be a more 
> convincing argument. If going malloc didnt lose you a bunch of 
> features and bring a bunch of other stuff you need to be 
> careful of, that might be a good argument too.
>
> I mean a good quality GC and seamless integration of manual 
> memory management would be a pretty good argument to make, but 
> D has neither of those ATM.

What are D's limitations on do-it-yourself reference counting?