On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 16:12:22 UTC, mist wrote:

How is D manual memory management any worse than plain C one?
Plenty of language features depend on GC but stuff that is left can hardly be named "a lousy excuse". It lacks some convenience and guidelines based on practical experience but it is already as capable as some of wide-spread solutions for systems programming (C). In fact I'd be much more afraid of runtime issues when doing system stuff than GC ones.

I think the point being made was that built in language features should not be dependent on the need for a GC because it means that you cannot fully use the language without a GC present and active. We can perhaps excuse the std library, but certainly not the language itself, because the claim is made that D's GC is fully optional.

--rt