Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[Dan Partelly]

On Thursday, 4 January 2018 at 08:28:31 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
abled. 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.

I used envy colloquially.
Yes, disabling GC might have been a feature early on. But not 
early on enough to not have core language features depending on 
it, and not early enough to have a std not depending on it. 
Modifying the std to be more compatible with this scenario is 
indeed happening, but as you say it is a process which started 
years ago, and its still dragging on, and no clear docs with what 
works and what not.


>
> 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.

Rust has a OS being written right now. Does D has ? Anyone ever 
wanted to use D to write a OS kernel, I doubt it. Is anyone 
seriously thinking today to port their *working* and maintained C 
code bases to D, possibly introducing new bugs in the process ? 
(yes some people like Walter did, Im aware of this. But I doubt 
this will have any serious adoption)

Id rather use a nice language as D to write new software, not to 
port old **working**   tools which are only maintained and not 
developed to it. I see no sense for that.