On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 at 17:14:57 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 at 05:41:43 UTC, evilrat wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 10 July 2019 at 04:51:03 UTC, t wrote:
>>>
>>> i guess he ment:
>>> i do not want to allocate memory with the gc, but use all d features. the resultant executable should not include a gc. as far as i know, thats not possible and thats why i don't use d.
>>
>> So what's the problem with simply avoiding quite short list of features that may ever involve GC, and keep the GC without work?
>
> Nobody has ever chosen a language because of a feature it didn't have. That wouldn't make sense. You can write dismissive comments about a language because of features you don't like but removal of features will never be a reason to use a language.

Go community seems to see it differently, threating to leave if it ever improves the error handling or gets some kind of lightweight generics as part of the Go 2.0 ongoing transition.