Social media

[Avrina]

On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 19:08:17 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 16:39:16 UTC, Avrina wrote:
>> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 14:43:22 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 13:11:20 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 13 June 2020 at 13:00:35 UTC, JN wrote:
>>>>> There is always someone saying that you don't have to use 
>>>>> GC in D
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, this is true and for special cases we can show users 
>>>> how it is done, but I wish we'd just focus on actually 
>>>> selling GC instead of hiding from it.
>>>>
>>>> GC is a proven winner in real world industry programming and 
>>>> is one of D's strengths. Why we constantly shoot ourselves 
>>>> in the foot by conceding this ground to internet trolls is 
>>>> beyond me.
>>>
>>> Indeed, even hard core C++ devs that happen to work with 
>>> Unreal, UWP/COM or DriverKit have to make peace with GC 
>>> technologies (either tracing or refcounted).
>>
>> I've heard heard the Unreal argument before. That's not the 
>> same thing as a GC in a programming language. You wouldn't be 
>> able to build the GC built in Unreal in a GC only language. 
>> You are using it as an example to use the GC but in reality it 
>> demonstrates the need for programming languages that doesn't 
>> force you to use one.
>
> Sure it is, Blueprints and Unreal C++ (as C++ dialect used in 
> Unreal) have GC support.

You are using a strawman argument, people that don't like GC for 
*systems* programming aren't against *all* GCs.

> And apparently everyone keeps forgetting that C++11 has gotten 
> a GC API, while a couple of dialects like C++/CLI and C++/CX 
> also have GC extensions.

That no one uses. C++/CLI is dead. C++/CX is dead. There's 
C++/WinRT which is dying and being replaced by Rust :). You are 
just giving reasons against a GC, no one liked using C++/CLI or 
C++/CX.