> C++ community has a strong bias against garbage collection
Well, it's a bit of a selection bias on your part IMO. The people who use C++ have seen the benefits of Java, python, C# and all the rest. And many of them(us) use Java, python, C# and stuff for meta-productivity build tools and the like. GC is great for some enormous set of problem domains. But for problems that cannot endure high or unstable latencies, GC is a bad solution. I'm writing C++ because it hits a sweet spot in the intersection of (low/deterministic latency + ubiquity among developers).
> Why can't you acknowledge that there are problems that have GC as the only and best solution?
There are, but I probably wouldn't have used C++ for them. In some rare cases I would but only because of momentum on an existing legacy solution.
Well, it's a bit of a selection bias on your part IMO. The people who use C++ have seen the benefits of Java, python, C# and all the rest. And many of them(us) use Java, python, C# and stuff for meta-productivity build tools and the like. GC is great for some enormous set of problem domains. But for problems that cannot endure high or unstable latencies, GC is a bad solution. I'm writing C++ because it hits a sweet spot in the intersection of (low/deterministic latency + ubiquity among developers).
> Why can't you acknowledge that there are problems that have GC as the only and best solution?
There are, but I probably wouldn't have used C++ for them. In some rare cases I would but only because of momentum on an existing legacy solution.