Why are the nogc crowed labeled as alarmists?!?!

[Dominikus Dittes Scherkl via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 18 July 2014 at 13:17:34 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 18:13:18 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
>> Are those that say the GC is fine and works for 90-95% of apps 
>> without issue just ignorant? Or are they arrogant?
>>
>> When one is writing a real time app and have the absolute 
>> lowest chance of losing control, a STW GC is simply not 
>> allowed in this apps.
>
> D works fine without GC for me. What problems do you have?

For me also.
The cool thing about D is:
You can use it like a script-language at first, and GC (+all the 
other nice features like unit tests, asserts etc) keep you from 
bothering with stupit bugs and implementation details that are 
only relevant for maximum performance.

And afterwards, if it comes to RT (real-time), the first thing I 
throw out is all that MMI stuff (man-machine-interface), e.g. 
everything dealing with strings. And thats about 98% of all 
functions that use GC in my code. The very little rest is things 
like exceptions, delegates and closures - because I have no idea 
how to use them with manual memory management. So unfortunately I 
have to avoid them in RT code.

But what remains is anyway far, far, better than what C offered. 
And to make that clear: nothing else was usable for embedded 
programming before D. No C++, no Java, nothing at all.