Future of memory management in D

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 23:39:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> And yet they still post here. It wouldn't be so bad if they 
> posted things that made sense. They say things like "D forces 
> you to use the GC" which is clearly nonsense.

If you want parity with C++ *language* features you have to use 
the GC. So that is an issue.

I've never complained about not being able to use Phobos, as I've 
always viewed Phobos as being too much of a high level 
scripting-oriented library.

Let me quote more from the same post I linked above, where I in 
2014 wrote:

>To me, a "better C" would have a minimal runtime, a tight 
>minimalistic standard library and very simple builtin ownership 
>semantics (uniqe_ptr). Then a set of supporting libraries that 
>are hardware-optimized (with varying degree of portability).

>However, I think those that are interested in D as a tight 
>system level language have to spec out "better C" themselves as 
>a formal language spec sketch. I'd be happy to contribute to 
>that, maybe we could start a wiki-page. Since a "better C" would 
>break existing code, it would allow a more "idealistic" language 
>design discussion. I think that could cut down on the noise.

On this I still agree with myself. :-)