Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Russel Winder]

On Fri, 2017-12-22 at 13:38 +0000, Dan Partelly via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> […]
> 
> I wanted to look at D as a "beter C++", with simple and sane 
> metaprograming and metaligusitic features.  It is almost there, 
> but unfortunately, not 0 cost abstraction without loosing too 
> much. You depend too much of having garbage collection active. It 
> works as a "betterC" it seems, but you loose a lot of 
> functionality which should be in a "better C" and again, a lot 
> from the standard libraries is lost. Template C++ 2017 works well 
> for a better C as well, and I retain 0 cost abstraction, decent 
> (yet inferior to D meta-programming), closures,
> exceptions, scopes...
[…]

I think we are now in a world where Rust is the zero cost abstraction
language to replace C and C++, except for those who are determined to
stay with C++ and evolve it.

D, like Go, should glory in having a GC and just go with it.
  
Of course this does not mean the GC as is is good enough. Go is on its
third I believe, and Java on it's fifth.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20171222/b477aca4/attachment.sig>