I just said there are loads of libraries which have been written explicitly to work with the GC disabled. Did you read what I wrote?

It looks like you work in a ton of different domains. I think based on what I've written in response to you so far, it should be easy to see that D is likely a good fit for some things you work on and a bad fit for others. I don't see what the problem is.

The D community is full of really nice and interesting people who are fun to interact with. It's also got a smaller number of people who complain loudly about the GC. This latter contingency of people is perceived as being maybe a bit frustrating and unreasonable.

I don't care whether you check D out or not. But your initial foray into this thread was to cast shade on D by mentioning issues with proprietary compilers (hasn't been a thing in years), and insinuating that the community was fractured because of the GC. Since you clearly don't know that much about the language and have no vested interest in it, why not leave well enough alone instead of muddying the waters with misleading and biased commentary?

My conclusion remains that the language is fractured by the optional GC and that its adoption was severely hampered by the proprietary toolchain. Nothing you have said meaningfully challenges that in my opinion, and many things you've said supports it. I don't think anything I've said is misleading.

Rust is fractured by the optional async-ness of libraries. And all languages are fractured by GPL vs non-GPL libraries.

You have a point, but it is not worth the drama. D's biggest problem comes from the strong opinions of people that have not tried using it.

> language is fractured by the optional GC

That's an interesting fantasy you have constructed. You should try listening to the people who actually use it.

I did, I listened to sfpotter. From their description, it's the source of a great deal of animosity within the D community.

Well, no, it isn't. There's some frustration. But mostly what I've seen is a lot of lengthy conversations with a lot of give and take. There's a small number of loud people who complain intensely, but there are also people who are against the GC who write lots of libraries that avoid it and even push the language in a healthy direction. If these people hadn't argued so strenuously against the GC, I doubt Phobos would have started moving in the direction of using the GC less and less. This is actually the sign of a healthy community.

Still nothing prevents you from rewriting those libraries to not use a GC.

Stop making excuses or expecting others to do your work for you.

Nothing is preventing you.

There are third party libraries for the language that don't use the GC, but as far as I know there isn't a standardized one that people pick.