betterC and CTFE

[Paulo Pinto]

On Saturday, 7 January 2023 at 02:09:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> BetterC code does not have a GC, and so doesn't allow using the 
> GC. But many have correctly pointed out that not having a GC 
> cripples CTFE. CTFE should be able to use the GC, it's a major 
> advantage of having a GC (and cripples languages with CTFE that 
> don't have GC).
>
> So, making some experiments, I found it usually worked. 
> Searching bugzilla, I found one case that didn't:
>
>   https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20101
>
> and fixed it:
>
>   https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/14789
>
> For those that still suffer the slings and arrows from this 
> problem, please let me know the bugzilla issues for them.
>
> P.S. This also applies to @nogc code - CTFE should still be 
> able to use the GC. Isn't that cool? Destroy the question "what 
> good a GC is in a systems programming language!"

I have long decided that C# and Go, following the path trailed by 
Cedar, Modula-3 and Oberon, show how it goes.

Every time I decide to have a look at what is happening in D, 
most certainly there is a ongoing discussion thread about the GC.

So much discussion about systems programming and GC, while others 
are shipping hardware running Go and .NET workloads on bare 
metal, like USB Armoury and Meadow boards.