Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the reason many C++ folks reject it. It's kind of ironic that having too many useful features can hurt you, but that seems to be what's happening here. I feel like they might actually have a shot at solving it by literally dropping GC support, but it's hard to say at this point. I don't know if the standard library still has anything that needs a GC, but making sure that's not the case might be a good first step if they're ever interested in going im this direction.

Conveniences like closures depend on gc

C++ has had closures without a GC for over a decade now.

As syntactic sugar for how C++ functors used to be implemented, and they also bring their own set of issues when interoperating with co-routines.

If anything that's a statement about coroutines, not closures. And even then, not every coroutine has problems. I don't see a logical implication from that to a GC requirement.

That's not true

https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#function-pointers-deleg...

> This is the logic I personally used in deciding not to use D.

Good call - I was unfortunate enough that I had to use it professionally for a few years. As comic book guy in the Simpsons would say "Worst language ever!".

Can you elaborate on your experience? There's a lot of negative D opinions from people who've barely used it and, for obvious self-selection reasons, a lot of positive ones from long term true believers. It would be interesting to see a negative experience from someone who used it extensively nonetheless.

I’m interested in hearing more. Also, I’m curious what language you use as a your daily driver?