OSNews article about C++09 degenerates into C++ vs. D discussion

[John Reimer]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:27:40 -0800, Dave <Dave_member at pathlink.com> wrote:

> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> BCS wrote:
>>> Mars wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16526
>>>
>>> One issue brought up is that of D "requiring" the use of a GC.
>>> What would it take to prove that wrong by making a full blown standard  
>>> lib that doesn't use a GC, and in fact doesn't have a GC?
>>>
>>> It would be painful to work with but no more so than in C++. OTOH with  
>>> scope() and such, it might be easy.
>>>
>>> Anyway, just a thought.
>>  Having such a library would make a huge difference in every C++ vs D  
>> discussion! The opposition would have a lot less ammunition against us.
>
> But the whole concern centers around two canards: a) GC is really slow  
> and b) malloc/free offer deterministic performance for real-time  
> appplications.
>
> I actually think that the best defense is dispelling those two myths. a)  
> for D will come in time and b) is just plain not true for general  
> purpose malloc/free implementations on modern operating systems.


Good points!

-JJR