On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:57:41 -0800, Frustrated <[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 17:30:54 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 11:40:37 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
And why does Phobos/runtime require the GC in so many cases when
it could just use an internal buffer? So much effort has been put
in to make the GC work that it simply has neglected all those
that can't use it as it is.
This is the crux of the problem. It's not so much that D uses garbage
collection as that Phobos is built in a way that prevents the reuse of
existing buffers. It becomes much harder to sell the language to a GC
averse group if it turns out they can't use the standard library as
well. Though I guess Tango is an option here as a replacement.
Right, and because of the mentality that the GC is one size that
fits all, phobos got this way. That mentality is still pervasive.
I call it laziness.
I think that at some point phobos will need to be rewritten...
maybe more .net like(there sense of hierarchy and presentation is
excellent). Maybe D needs a proper allocator sub system built in
to get to that point?
You do realize that in .NET the BCL is not GC-optional right. It
GC-allocates like a fiend. What they have is a monumentally better GC than
D. .NET is actually proof that GC's can work quite well in all but the
most extreme edge cases.
Effectively what you are saying is ".NET does it well with a GC so we need
to rewrite Phobos to not use a GC" ... Um wait, what?
I am not saying to Phobos needs to allocate as much as it does, just that
argument itself fails to met a basic standard of logical coherency.
--
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
