GCs in the news

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 15:19:59 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 13:29:18 UTC, John wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:57:09 UTC, currysoup wrote:
>>> It's not about "acceptance", it's about the reality that a GC 
>>> is not a universal solution to memory management.
>>>
>>> Just from watching a few of the DConf 2014 talks, if you want 
>>> performance you avoid the GC at all costs (even if that means 
>>> allocating into huge predefined buffers). Once you're going 
>>> to these lengths to avoid garbage collection it begs the 
>>> question, why are you even using this language? Within this 
>>> community the question is rhetorical but to outsiders I feel 
>>> it's a major concern.
>>
>>
>> If D came without GC, it would have replaced C++ a long time 
>> ago!
>
> The only thing that would have been replaced is the complaints 
> that D has a garbage collector with complaints that D doesn't 
> have the tools and existing libraries of C++. If C++ users were 
> sincere in their claims that they really want to use D, they'd 
> have disabled the garbage collector and used it.
>
> I think the GC issue is eating resources that would be better 
> spent elsewhere.

+1