GC/nogc status in docs

[aberba]

On Thursday, 9 July 2020 at 12:55:45 UTC, aberba wrote:
> Has there been any consideration on tagging Phobos function as 
> either GC or no-GC depending on how they behave for general 
> awareness when reading the docs?
>
> I'm thinking it could be useful to know what you get.

So I need to expand on this. For example if you read this post's 
cmments:

https://dlang.org/blog/2019/10/15/my-vision-of-ds-future/

There's lots of comments about D's GC which most core members of 
the community know its isn't true at all CURRENTLY. The rumors 
eventually becomes facts. And there's a lot of cleaning up of D's 
reputation to do.

Its everywhere I read about D.

Lots of misinformation out there about the current status of 
Phobos in terms of how much of it is GC/nogc and the myth around 
the need for GC in the first place.

Atila answered very well quite a lot of the questions but that's 
for just SOMEONE who read the post's comments.

GC, RAII, RC, so many misinformation HN, reddit, etc. (been doing 
some research BTW)

The
> From what I have read,...
is all over the place.
See 
https://dlang.org/blog/2019/10/15/my-vision-of-ds-future/#comment-14607

Marking functions in docs as GC or nogc goes beyond just function 
signatures cus what you find in the D docs is meaningless IMO to 
many new comers. OR a least anyway else to improve and make 
things clear.

BTW, its not just GC. IDEs, debugging, etc it all add up. Can we 
a least remove all the dead IDEs/editors and GUIs from the Wiki 
and only leave out the good/reliable options?