On Tuesday, December 25, 2012 16:33:27 Leandro Lucarella wrote: > On Tuesday, 25 December 2012 at 14:48:48 UTC, Sven Over wrote: > >> Phobos does rely on the GC to some extent. Most algorithms and > >> ranges do not though. > > > > Running (library) code that was written with GC in mind and > > turning GC off doesn't sound ideal. > > It isn't if you care about memory leaks. And also bare in mind > that some language constructs also relies on the GC, like some > dynamic arrays operations (concatenation and appending for > example). Right now is pretty hard to write D code that doesn't > really use the GC at all.
There's also often no reason not to have the GC on and use it for certain stuff but use ref-counted objects as your main type of memory-management. Then, you avoid whatever issues the GC has in most cases but don't have to worry about what it takes to be able to not use it at all. For instance, arrays would probably be GC-allocated in general, since then you can use slices and whatnot, but maybe all of your user-defined objects on the heap could be malloced and freed with reference counts (though that sort of thing should be much easier once we have custom allocators - it's a bit more of a pain right now than it should be). - Jonathan M Davis
