Andrei's list of barriers to D adoption

[Mithun Hunsur via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 04:17:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 02:30:55 UTC, Pie? wrote:
>> Duh! The claim is made that D can work without the GC... but 
>> that's a red herring... If you take about the GC what do you 
>> have?
>
> Like 90% of the language, still generally nicer than most the 
> competition.
>
> Though, I wish D would just own its decision instead of bowing 
> to Reddit pressure. GC is a proven success in the real world 
> with a long and impressive track record. Yes, there are times 
> when you need to optimize your code, but even then you aren't 
> really worse off with it than without it.

The problem is that D is targeted as a multi-paradigm systems 
programming language, and while it's largely successful at that, 
the GC doesn't fit in with that domain by nature of its existence.

There's no problem with _having_ a GC, it just shouldn't be the 
default case for what's meant to be a systems language, 
especially when language and standard library features become 
dependent upon it.

But I digress: we've had this debate before, we're having it now, 
and we'll keep having it well into the future :-)