On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 07:51:09 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 October 2018 at 21:44:45 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>
>> Not everyone have the time nor skills of doing manual memory management. Even more so when correctness is way more important than speed.
>>
>> Not everything needs to be fast.
>
> That's a lamest excuse if I ever seen one.

It not an excuse, it's reality. The d language have multiple issues, the idea to have the language to have built in support for GC is NOT one of them.
We develop our software using C# and the GC is a huge time saver for us as we are developing web apps.

I find your side remarks to be very arrogant and condescending.

On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 20:26:10 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

> It not an excuse, it's reality. The d language have multiple issues, the idea to have the language to have built in support for GC is NOT one of them.

Read this thread again then, carefully. You *have to* understand D's GC in order to use it correctly, efficiently, and safely. And to do that, you *have to* understand your data and what you're doing with it. And to do that you *have to* work with the machine, not in spite of it. At which point you may well reconsider using the GC in the first place. Or you may not. But at least that will be an informed decision based on actual value, not this "save time" fallacy.

> We develop our software using C# and the GC is a huge time saver for us as we are developing web apps.

So you're in this for a quick buck, and to hell with everything else. Got it. And C#, so likely also everything is an "object", and screw the heap wholesale, right?.. Save time writing code, waste time processing data. Cool choice.

> I find your side remarks to be very arrogant and condescending.

I'm arrogant, huh? It's people like you who think that "the" way to program is produce crappy code fast.

It's so funny how all of you guys seem to think that I'm against the GC. I'm not. I'm against stupid "advice" like the one given in the OP. Almost all of you seem like you're in the same boat: you don't give a flying duck about your impact on the industry.

On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 07:51:09 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>
> That's a lamest excuse if I ever seen one. If you can't be bothered to acquire one of the most relevant skills for writing code for modern systems, then:
>
> a) Ideally, you shouldn't be writing code
> b) At the very least, you're not qualified to give any advice pertaining to writing code
>
> PS. "Correctness" also includes correct use of the machine and it's resources.

Ideally you wouldn’t have chosen to even try D. You (and others who spend so much time arguing against garbage collection on a forum for a language designed with garbage collection) would be better off using a non-garbage collected language.

On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 05:26:56 UTC, Tony wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 October 2018 at 07:51:09 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>>
>> That's a lamest excuse if I ever seen one. If you can't be bothered to acquire one of the most relevant skills for writing code for modern systems, then:
>>
>> a) Ideally, you shouldn't be writing code
>> b) At the very least, you're not qualified to give any advice pertaining to writing code
>>
>> PS. "Correctness" also includes correct use of the machine and it's resources.
>
> Ideally you wouldn’t have chosen to even try D. You (and others who spend so much time arguing against garbage collection on a forum for a language designed with garbage collection) would be better off using a non-garbage collected language.

He doesn't argue against garbage collection. And D is one of the few langauges that can be used without garbage collector, so it can be non-garbage collected language and can be used as such.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:22:29 +0000, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

> On Saturday, 13 October 2018 at 12:15:07 UTC, rjframe wrote:
> 
>> ...I didn't even keep the script; I'll never need it again. There are times when the easy or simple solution really is the best one for the task at hand.
> 
> And?.. Would you now go around preaching how awesome the GC is and that everyone should use it?

For something like I did, yes.

The article the OP links to may want GC for everything; the excerpt the OP actually quoted is talking about applications where memory management isn't the most important thing. I completely agree with that excerpt.

On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 10:11:15 UTC, rjframe wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 12:22:29 +0000, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

>> And?.. Would you now go around preaching how awesome the GC is and that everyone should use it?
>
> For something like I did, yes.
>
> The article the OP links to may want GC for everything; the excerpt the OP actually quoted is talking about applications where memory management isn't the most important thing. I completely agree with that excerpt.

Yeah, well, what's the title of this thread, and what's the conclusion of that post?

Automation is what literally all of us do. But you should not automate something you don't understand.

On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 00:02:31 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> I'm arrogants, huh?
When you say statements like this.

> you don't give a flying duck about your impact on the industry.
It come across as condescending and arrogant.

On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 16:46:45 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 00:02:31 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>> I'm arrogants, huh?
> When you say statements like this.
>
>> you don't give a flying duck about your impact on the industry.
> It come across as condescending and arrogant.

Yep, and everything else that's inconvenient you'd just cut out. Did I hit a nerve?..

On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 17:30:28 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 16:46:45 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 00:02:31 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>>> I'm arrogants, huh?
>> When you say statements like this.
>>
>>> you don't give a flying duck about your impact on the industry.
>> It come across as condescending and arrogant.
>
> Yep, and everything else that's inconvenient you'd just cut out.
You mean the part that you straw man me, and resort to personal attacks? No need for me to address it.

>Did I hit a nerve?..

Case in point.

On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 18:00:24 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 17:30:28 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 16:46:45 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> On Monday, 15 October 2018 at 00:02:31 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>>>> I'm arrogants, huh?
>>> When you say statements like this.
>>>
>>>> you don't give a flying duck about your impact on the industry.
>>> It come across as condescending and arrogant.
>>
>> Yep, and everything else that's inconvenient you'd just cut out.
> You mean the part that you straw man me, and resort to personal attacks? No need for me to address it.

Pfff... *I* am "straw man"ing you? That's just hilarious.

"Not everything needs to be fast" - I never said everything needs to be fast. I'm saying everything *doesn't need to be slow* due to lazy people doing lazy things because they "don't want to think about it". So who's straw man-ing who, exactly? Do you even understand the difference?

By saying that you're more interested in saving your development time as opposed to processing time *for web apps, no less*, you're admitting that you don't care about the consequences of your actions. You finding it "personal" only supports that assessment, so be my guest, be offended. Or be smart, and stop and think about what you're doing.

>>Did I hit a nerve?..
>
> Case in point.

If you want to have an argument, I suggest you stop quote mining and start paying attention.