Possibility of non stop-the-world GC in the future?

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 07:19:06 UTC, Sergei Nosov wrote:
> Then I guess you would rather use C++ than D. =) It's more of 
> "idiomatic" subject than anything else. One of the ways C++ and 
> D differs is the answer to the question "what should happen if 
> you do something *fancy*?".
>
> The C++ answer is "the program should crash (go to the 
> undefined behavior area)". And the D answer is "the program 
> should sacrifice performance/memory, but remain in a 
> well-defined state and *do the right thing*".

This is unreasonable. D targets itself as a system programming 
language, among the others usage cases, and thus request to have 
a compiler-enforced memory usage guard is perfectly valid. What 
shall it do if something "fancy" is attempted in @nogc? Issue a 
compile-time error, profit!