原文：http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13574552/d-programming-without-the-garbage-collector

1. D can use pretty much any C library, just define the functions needed. D can also use C++ libraries, but D does not understand certain C++ constructs. So... D can use almost as many libraries as C++. They just aren't native D libs.

2. From D's Library reference.
   Core.memory:

   static nothrow void disable();
   

   Disables automatic garbage collections performed to minimize the process footprint. Collections may continue to occur in instances where the implementation deems necessary for correct program behavior, such as during an out of memory condition. This function is reentrant, but enable must be called once for each call to disable.

   static pure nothrow void free(void* p);
   

   Deallocates the memory referenced by p. If p is null, no action occurs. If p references memory not originally allocated by this garbage collector, or if it points to the interior of a memory block, no action will be taken. The block will not be finalized regardless of whether the FINALIZE attribute is set. If finalization is desired, use delete instead.

   static pure nothrow void* malloc(size_t sz, uint ba = 0);
   

   Requests an aligned block of managed memory from the garbage collector. This memory may be deleted at will with a call to free, or it may be discarded and cleaned up automatically during a collection run. If allocation fails, this function will call onOutOfMemory which is expected to throw an OutOfMemoryError.

   So yes. Read more here: http://dlang.org/garbage.html

   And here: http://dlang.org/memory.html

   If you really need classes, look at this: http://dlang.org/memory.html#newdelete delete has been deprecated, but I believe you can still free() it.

3. Don't use classes, use structs. Structs are stack allocated, classes are heap. Unless you need polymorphism or other things classes support, they are overhead for what you are doing. You can use malloc and free if you want to.

4. More or less... fill out the function definitions here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/blob/master/src/gcstub/gc.d . There's a GC proxy system set up to allow you to customize the GC. So it's not like it is something that the designers do not want you to do.

Little GC knowledge here: The garbage collector is not guaranteed to run the destructor for all unreferenced objects. Furthermore, the order in which the garbage collector calls destructors for unreference objects is not specified. This means that when the garbage collector calls a destructor for an object of a class that has members that are references to garbage collected objects, those references may no longer be valid. This means that destructors cannot reference sub objects. This rule does not apply to auto objects or objects deleted with the DeleteExpression, as the destructor is not being run by the garbage collector, meaning all references are valid.

import std.c.stdlib; that should have malloc and free.

import core.memory; this has GC.malloc, GC.free, GC.addroots, //add external memory to GC...

strings require the GC because they are dynamic arrays of immutable chars. ( immutable(char)[] ) Dynamic arrays require GC, static do not.

If you want manual management, go ahead.

import std.c.stdlib;
import core.memory;char* one = cast(char*) GC.malloc(char.sizeof * 8);.
GC.free(one);//pardon me, I'm not used to manual memory management.
//I am *asking* you to edit this to fix it, if it needs it.

why create a wrapper class for an int? you are doing nothing more than slowing things down and wasting memory.

class Foo { int n; this(int _n){ n = _n; } }
writeln(Foo.sizeof);  //it's 8 bytes, btw
writeln(int.sizeof);  //Its *half* the size of Foo; 4 bytes.Foo[] m;// = new Foo[n]; //8 sec
m.length=n; //7 sec minor optimization. at least on my machine.
foreach(i; 0..n)m[i] = new Foo(i);int[] m;
m.length=n; //nice formatting. and default initialized to 0
//Ooops! forgot this...
foreach(i; 0..n)m[i] = i;//.145 sec

If you really need to, then write the Time-sensitive function in C, and call it from D. Heck, if time is really that big of a deal, use D's inline assembly to optimize everything.