On Wednesday, 4 May 2022 at 02:42:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 May 2022 at 14:57:46 UTC, Alain De Vos wrote:
Note, It's not i'm against GC. But my preference is to use
builtin types and libraries if possible,
But at the same time be able to be sure memory is given free
when a variable is going out of scope.
It seems not easy to combine the two with a GC which does his
best effort but as he likes or not.
What I described is an optional compiler optimization. The
compiler is free to avoid the GC allocation for an array
literal initializer if it is possible to do so. If you were to,
e.g., return the array from the function, it would 100% for
sure be allocated on the GC and not the stack. In practice, I
don't know if any of the compilers actually do this.
Anyway, if you care when memory is deallocated, then the GC
isn't the right tool for the job. The point of the GC is that
you don't have to care.
GC is about reducing the complexity, cognitive load, and possible
bugs - associated with manual memory management.
It is certainly *not* about you not having to care anymore (about
memory management).
Why not have an option to mark an object, so that real-time
garbage collection occurs on it as it exits scope?
