Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Mike Parker]

On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 08:09:27 UTC, Dan Partelly wrote:

> Now my perception is that D tries hard to be both, with some 
> regrettable consequences. Started as a GC language with 
> language features which depend on GC, and a std which was done 
> for a GC language and has dependency on GC. But it also envied
> the cars which can be driven off roads, so it allowed GC to be 
> disabled. At the cost of being unable to use parts of the

Envy? Hardly. Being able to disable D's GC was a feature from 
early on. Phobos has been modified over the years to make it more 
compatible with that scenario, as was widely requested.


> language, and whole parts of std. Then it got even more envious 
> and got a -betterC mode whose raison d'etre is unclear, apart 
> from some people saying it's Walter's toy, which crippled D 
> even more, and made std a dubious proposition until someone 
> goes through it step by step and see the traps.

The reason for -betterC is quite clear (and again, has nothing to 
do with envy): to make it easier to port C (and eventually C++) 
code to D, and to make D easier to use in environments where the 
runtime is a burden (e.g. OS kernels). It does not "cripple" D.