On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 19:49:35 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 17:48:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 17:42:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
I'm hoping to put all information in one place. Then when
someone on Reddit or HN or here starts making claims about
the GC, I can give them one link that shows all of their
options.
That's nice. Just get your hopes up for it having an effect.
Typo, I meant "don't"... Sloppy of me. Documentation is nice,
but:
1. People will complain that it isn't possible.
2. When possible people will complain that it isn't in the
standard library.
3. When in "std" people will complain that not enough libraries
use it.
4. When libraries use it people will complain that it doesn't
work with older libs.
5. When older libs have been rewritten to support it they will
complain that it is better in Rust and C++ and not compatible
with Rust and C++.
Anyway, my main point is that programmers coming from such
languages will most certainly complain if it isn't in the
standard library because of interoperability between libraries,
but that is basically just the bottom of the hill that you have
to climb to get to a level where people stop complaining.
Many invested in Rust and C++ will look for arguments to support
staying with their language. I've come to the conclusion that the
D community is mostly to blame for not making a good case to the
other group that are open to D, but for technical reasons or
simply personal preference don't like GC, that D is still an
option. There's no excuse for not making it easy to evaluate
one's options for GC-less programming if we support that style of
programming.
