The "no gc" crowd

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 19:52:32 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 10/8/13 10:00 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>> proper performance
>
> I apologize for picking out your post, Dicebot, as the 
> illustrative example, but I see this pop up in various 
> discussion and I've been meaning to comment on it for a while.
>
> Please stop using words like 'proper', 'real', and other 
> similar terms to describe a requirement. It's a horrible 
> specifier and adds no useful detail.
>
> It tends to needlessly setup the convarsation as 
> confrontational or adversarial and implies that anyone that 
> disagrees is wrong or not working on a real system.  There's 
> lots of cases where pushing to the very edge of bleeding isn't 
> actually required.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad

What wording would you suggest to use? For me "proper" is pretty 
much equal to "meeting requirements / expectations as defined by 
similar projects written in C". It has nothing do with "real" vs 
"toy" projects, just implies that in some domains such 
expectations are more restrictive.