You don't like GC? Do you?

[Stanislav Blinov]

On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 20:26:10 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

> It not an excuse, it's reality. The d language have multiple 
> issues, the idea to have the language to have built in support 
> for GC is NOT one of them.

Read this thread again then, carefully. You *have to* understand 
D's GC in order to use it correctly, efficiently, and safely. And 
to do that, you *have to* understand your data and what you're 
doing with it. And to do that you *have to* work with the 
machine, not in spite of it. At which point you may well 
reconsider using the GC in the first place. Or you may not. But 
at least that will be an informed decision based on actual value, 
not this "save time" fallacy.

> We develop our software using C# and the GC is a huge time 
> saver for us as we are developing web apps.

So you're in this for a quick buck, and to hell with everything 
else. Got it. And C#, so likely also everything is an "object", 
and screw the heap wholesale, right?.. Save time writing code, 
waste time processing data. Cool choice.

> I find your side remarks to be very arrogant and condescending.

I'm arrogant, huh? It's people like you who think that "the" way 
to program is produce crappy code fast.

It's so funny how all of you guys seem to think that I'm against 
the GC. I'm not. I'm against stupid "advice" like the one given 
in the OP. Almost all of you seem like you're in the same boat: 
you don't give a flying duck about your impact on the industry.