Even just reading any of the dozens of long discussions about adding GC to C++ might have been enlightening. It's not like this has not been discussed over and over and over over the last twenty years.
The point being that in any discussion about new C++ features the central point always tends to devolve to:
What is the cost to me if I don't use this feature in my programs?
If I don't use exceptions, I don't pay for them. If I don't use virtual member functions, I don't pay for them. If I don't use RTTI, I don't pay for it.
In other words: If you want/expect C++ programmers to switch to your language, don't make people pay for what they don't want to use.
Support for plugging in a GC would not violate that, but enabling/requiring a GC by default most certainly does.
The point being that in any discussion about new C++ features the central point always tends to devolve to:
What is the cost to me if I don't use this feature in my programs?
If I don't use exceptions, I don't pay for them. If I don't use virtual member functions, I don't pay for them. If I don't use RTTI, I don't pay for it.
In other words: If you want/expect C++ programmers to switch to your language, don't make people pay for what they don't want to use.
Support for plugging in a GC would not violate that, but enabling/requiring a GC by default most certainly does.