On Sunday, 7 January 2018 at 12:22:17 UTC, John Colvin wrote: > On Saturday, 6 January 2018 at 16:25:46 UTC, German Diago wrote: >> - want no gc? Ok, at least there is BetterC, so if I invest myself quite a bit on D (I am the kind of programmer that likes to squeeze power out of machines, so this always means that I will not consider VM languages), I will always have. > > Also, it's perfectly possible to avoid most of the downsides of the GC (and keep some of the upsides) without worrying about BetterC. @nogc where you need it is great, BetterC is a much more extreme solution. Yes, that is my guess also, but there are chances that I will be in these extreme situations myself, not for my pet projects, but for some embedded stuff I want to do. That is why I want something without runtime for microcontrollers at some point. Just to have the possibility open. For now I think I will stick to C++ for that (a subset) until I am confident D can do perfectly ok there. I know D is designed for that also (modulo GC and runtime) but I still need to see the practical, day to day problems if I use D for such a thing instead of C++, which I know quite well.