On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Rob T <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, 7 January 2013 at 16:12:22 UTC, mist wrote: > >> How is D manual memory management any worse than plain C one? >> Plenty of language features depend on GC but stuff that is left can >> hardly be named "a lousy excuse". It lacks some convenience and guidelines >> based on practical experience but it is already as capable as some of >> wide-spread solutions for systems programming (C). In fact I'd be much more >> afraid of runtime issues when doing system stuff than GC ones. >> > > I think the point being made was that built in language features should > not be dependent on the need for a GC because it means that you cannot > fully use the language without a GC present and active. We can perhaps > excuse the std library, but certainly not the language itself, because the > claim is made that D's GC is fully optional. > > --rt >
You're absolutely right. D would be far better if there was a way to specify custom allocators for built-in data structures. Perhaps another magical property: int[int] a; a.allocator = new MyCustomAllocator; a[5] = 5; That's the least code-breaking way I can think of. -- Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan.
