Getting completely (I mean ENTIRELY) rid off GC

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:55:42 +0000
Andrey Lifanov via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> Everyone tells about greatness and safety of GC, and that it is 
> hard to live without it... But, I suppose, you all do know the 
> one programming language in which 95% of AAA-quality popular 
> desktop software and OS is written. And this language is C/C++.
> 
> How do you explain this?
there were times when cool software was written in assembler language.
and the real answer was: "there is no alternative".

stop telling fairy tales that it is easy to program safe in C++. but if
you still want C++, i can give you some links where you can download
free C++ compilers.

why switch to D and throwing out one of it's greatest features? as we
told you, there *IS* the way to avoid GC if you want. did you read that
messages? those about 'scoped' and other things? and about the things
you'll lose if you don't want to use GC? did you noticed that you can
mix GC and manual allocations (with some carefull coding, of course)?

you gave no use cases, yet insisting that GC is bad-bad-bad-bad. we
told you that refcounting is a form of GC, and it's not that
predictable as you believe, but you still talking about "no GC".

please, do you really want to learn or just trolling?

btw, i think that this whole thread belongs to 'D.learn'.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140912/9a6f2774/attachment-0001.sig>