Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[bpr]

On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 13:38:25 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:
> 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...

It seems that there's an effort from the top to bring more higher 
level features into --betterC. I agree with you that more should 
be there, that it should really be betterC++ and strive for 
feature parity with modern C++.