Plan for D

[Patrick Schluter]

On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 10:15:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 May 2021 at 09:48:58 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
> By definition, avoiding the GC means avoiding features that use 
> the GC. And you don't lose everything in the standard library, 
> either. A good chunk of it does not require the GC.
>
> Like anything else in programming, it's a tradeoff. Give up the 
> GC and you lose the convenience it provides. The question is, 
> do you *need* to give up the GC or not? And if so, do you need 
> to give it up completely or only in the spots where you 
> absolutely cannot trigger an allocation?
>
> I'm not saying there can't be more work done to alleviate any 
> pain that arises from going without the GC. But I do believe 
> some people reach for @nogc when they don't need to, and I 
> don't think that's a demographic we should be aiming for.

Yes, POOP is what made C++ so unappealing (POOP permeates C++ 
froma A to Z) and we should avoid to fall in that same trap in D.

POOP = Premature Optimization Oriented Programming.