On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 17:21:12 UTC, Joakim wrote:
You seem not to have read the original link and Walter's first post: why would we expend all that effort on a small, shrinking niche of the language market that is populated by a couple thousand diehard programmers who won't look at any new language?
Empiricall Id say that a lot of those programmers are interested in both old and new languages, from Lisp to D. But nevermind that. Those people are not idiots really. They would use any language which gets the job done, and they would use as high level as possible to get the job done. They look and then they go back from practical reasons. And a 10% market of C programmers is not really small niche. D could have got a lot of those, if it made just one more good decision regarding the "how" of GC and libs. The IOT is upon us, automation is upon us, embeded devices slowly become ubiquitous in cosumer market, while a lot of languages shoot themselves in the foot from beeing a part of this market with poor decisions.
Given that GC is already here and addresses a much bigger market, there's no point in Osborning all that's available _today_ by forever dreaming for a fully no-GC stdlib that's not going to be here anytime soon.
Sure. This is why I said I lament the choiche done. Today the vast std lib of D should have been not GC dependent. So IMO, D made a good decision having GC (they did a lot of great decsions btw, D is phenomenal good IMO) and D made a very bad decision having a std lib dependant on GC, convenience language features dependant by gc (vectors , hashes and the like belong to the library ), and core language features dependant on GC (classes / exceptions whatever)
So there you have it. Regarding GC, in my opinion D made both a good decision and a bad one.
