D is crap

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 09:30:37 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Lisp or SmallTalk)[1]. D couldn't have afforded not to have GC 
> when it first came out. It was expected of a (new) language to 
> provide GC by then - and GC had become a selling point for new 
> languages.

This is not true, it is just wishful thinking. D was harmed by 
the GC, not propelled by it. I am not missing any point, sorry. 
Just go look at what people who gave up on D claim to be a major 
reason, the GC scores high...


> It wasn't demanding. I wrote a lot of code in Objective-C and 
> it was perfectly doable.

Of course it was doable, but developers had trouble getting it 
right. In Objective-C Foundation you have to memorize what kind 
of ownership functions return. A responsibility which ARC is 
relieving the developer from. Autorelease-pools does not change 
that, and you have to take special measures to avoid running out 
of memory with autorelease pools as it is a very simple 
region-allocator (what Walter calls a bump--allocator) so 
autorelease pools are not a generic solution.

Objective-C had a very primitive manual RC solution that relied 
on conventions. They added a GC and ARC and only kept ARC. As 
simple as that.

C++ actually has much robust memory management that what 
Objective-C had.