How's the memory-safety model in D without a GC, last time I looked at it, it seemed to me that C++ 11/14 has the better model here and now with the C++ core guidelines, it may be even better.
However you can write gc free code regions by marking them as @nogc and the compiler will make sure you only call code that is @nogc compatible.
Additionally, there is some ongoing discussion how to improve the language to depend less on the GC.
The C++ core guidelines are great, and me being a C++ fan even with its warts, welcome them and all the work the C++ community is doing.
However them being opt-in, relying on static analysis and the quality of the code I usually see at companies, which tends to be C with Classes from developers that don't even know what CppCon is, I am not sure how the adoption will be like.
Has the core guidelines Checker tool been released yet? For those that haven't studied the guideline intensely, I'd assume it's necessary to do any kind of real world comparison.
I imagine he/she means the newly introduced C++ Core Guidelines with the _prt<>() and _view() classes, and the adoption of Rust like lifetime analysis for static analysers.
However you can write gc free code regions by marking them as @nogc and the compiler will make sure you only call code that is @nogc compatible.
Additionally, there is some ongoing discussion how to improve the language to depend less on the GC.
The C++ core guidelines are great, and me being a C++ fan even with its warts, welcome them and all the work the C++ community is doing.
However them being opt-in, relying on static analysis and the quality of the code I usually see at companies, which tends to be C with Classes from developers that don't even know what CppCon is, I am not sure how the adoption will be like.