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

[Walter Bright]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> 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.

The ones who don't want to use D will find the first excuse, valid or 
not. Fix the excuse, and they'll just move on to the next excuse, valid 
or not. It's a fool's game. I've been around that circle before. The 
people we should listen to are the people who actually *use* D, not the 
ones who just glanced at a chart looking for fault.

The poster who claimed that conservative gc is somehow incompatible with 
cryptographic software is misinformed. Even if he were correct, the 
cryptographic buffers could be allocated with malloc() and would then 
have no effect whatsoever on the gc.