On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 06:48:28 -0800, Paulo Pinto <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 02.02.2014 15:11, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe:
On Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 11:23:56 UTC, JR wrote:
I *seem* to remember reading here that you and Walter were
increasingly growing to favor ARC, but I can't find the post.
Personally, I think ARC is a waste of time and none of the arguments
I've seen for it are convincing. Improving the Gc implementation would
be a much bigger win.
It might be that ARC will be a solution given the recent work in
Objective-C, ParaSail, Rust and the misterious M#.
I was even surprised to discover that Cedar actually used RC with a GC
just for collecting cycles.
What I don't like is using Objective-C as a poster child for ARC,
because the only reason it exists, is that Apple engineers weren't able
to write a GC for Objective-C that didn't core dump left and right.
Apple of course sold the history in a different way.
--
Paulo
I just want to point out that in the comments of Joe Duffy's latest post
on M# he explicitly stated that M# is still C# semantics, and specifically
he says that all existing C# code will compile with M#, since ARC would by
very fact of it's nature require the language semantics to change, it's
extremely unlikely that M# will use ARC. Especially since they have access
to a GC guru. For a ridiculously easy example, what do you do when one
object implements .Dispose() and another one does not?
--
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
