GC vs. Manual Memory Management Real World Comparison

[Rob T]

On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 21:02:34 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> So I always take the assertions that manual memory management 
> is a must with a grain of salt.
>
> --
> Paulo

Probably no one in here is thinking that we should not have a GC.

I'm sure that many applications will benefit from a GC, but I'm 
also certain that not all applicatins require a GC, and it's a 
mistake to assume everyone will be happy to have one as was 
illustrated in the OP.

In my case, I'm not too concerned about performance, or pauses in 
the execution, but I do require dynamic loadable libraries, and I 
do want to link D code to existing C/C++ code, but in order to do 
these things, I cannot use the GC because I'm told that it will 
not work under these situations.

It may be theoretically possible to build a near perfect GC that 
will work well for even RT applications, and will work for 
dynamic loadable libraies, etc, but while waiting for one to 
materialize in D, what are we supposed to do when the current GC 
is unsuitable?

--rt