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

[John Reimer]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:10:36 -0800, Mike Capp <mike.capp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Walter Bright (and assorted quoted people) wrote:
>> >
>> > [John Reimer] most D apologists /DO/ advertise D as having the
>> > best of both worlds when it comes to memory management, but C++ fans  
>> are
>> > bound and determined to see D as practically a GC-only language: the  
>> GC
>> > is one of the first points they always bring up. [...] It's unfair and
>> > short-sited, but a typical response.
>
> It's not that unfair. D has good support for RAII now - possibly better  
> than C++'s


Huh?  I'm not following.  I said it's unfair that C++ users frequently see  
D as GC-only.  Your response seems to indicate that this is not unfair,  
but I can't determine your line of reasoning.


> on balance, though with different strengths and weaknesses. But GC-less
> programming (as opposed to GC+manual) is ignored - no compiler checking,  
> no
> standard library beyond C's unless you're willing to vet the source with  
> a
> fine-toothed comb. The post John is applauding here states this  
> assumption
> explicitly: that there's no need for or value in a GC-less library.
>


I'm sorry, Mike.  What post are you saying I'm applauding?  I can't see  
how relating my applauding to the conclusion in that sentence makes any  
sense.  Is there something implied or did you mean to point something out?

Confused,

-JJR