Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Dan Partelly]

On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 15:23:51 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> 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.

Why should we settle for this ? D code (efortless) is easier to 
read then Rust. I assume this to be true for a lot of programmers 
who know C/C++. It also introperates very well with C, which is 
great boon, since at low level we live on the shoulder of a titan 
written in C.  It has tremnedous features, and ironically the 
best of them could have been designed to not relay on GC. As most 
, if not all, of the features offered by its library could have 
been done with no GC.

>
> 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.

A good implementation at library level of GC would mean that I 
can use one single language
in all areas of system programming. Or at least, a implementation 
where std:: and core features of language should not relay on GC. 
This, IMO is an advantage not to be neglected. A better C mode 
with a very powerfull high level standard library (like std:: ), 
exceptions, RAII, classes (yes, why not ) typeid would be a very 
big step ahead. All those could be done without having to worry 
about existence of GC. C++ has all those.

IMO the key here is the standard libray of the language. Nothing 
in it should relay  on the existence of GC. Why, why, does it 
have to depend on GC and hence automatically disqualify itself 
from a better C world ? The C runtime ezposed by core is 
powerfull, but imagine having std:: power in better C as well. I 
really lament this.

You could have the best of the two worlds.