Why is D's GC slower than GO's?

[ISO C with Modules]

On Sunday, 30 October 2022 at 00:36:23 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> ...
> ....
> Maybe Zig is doing better than some competitors because it does 
> not try to provide a high level experience (or do they?). 
> Anyway, from a distance it looks like Zig is attracting a more 
> more cohesive group of programmers with more overlapping 
> expectations.

So Zig (like all C replacement wannabeess..) IS meant to be a 
higher level of experience of C?

But C is 'THE' standard, for low level programming (excluding 
assembly of course).

Why would anyone need a higher level for low level programming?

That makes no sense whatsoever!

It's why all these 'better than C' languages never get anywhere...

C++ (not C) should be the replacment target of new programming 
languages.

The only improvement you can make on C, is getting rid of the 
need for .h files.

i.e. C needs modules. That's all it needs. To add anything else, 
simply takes away it's advantages (which is .. low level 
programming).

Yes... I know.. D does this for C... but it needs to be an 
international standard for it to be meaningful.

I cannot go work for a company that uses C, and say hey we can 
use D's C with modules.

It's a non-starter.

ISO C with Modules ..please.