On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 11:13:03 UTC, Don wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 10:32:26 UTC, ed wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 09:59:07 UTC, Don wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 03:43:53 UTC, ed wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 01:36:09 UTC, Adam Wilson
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:04:08 -0800, Manu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 4 February 2014 06:21, Adam Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu <
[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/3/14, 6:57 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
Anyone asking for the addition of ARC or owning
pointers to D, gets
pretty much ignored. The topic is "Smart pointers
instead of GC?",
remember? People here seem to be more interested in
diverting to
nullable, scope and GC optimization. Telling, indeed.
I thought I made it clear that GC avoidance (which
includes considering
built-in reference counting) is a major focus of 2014.
Andrei
Andrei, I am sorry to report that anything other than
complete removal of
the GC and replacement with compiler generated ARC will
be unacceptable to
a certain, highly vocal, subset of D users. No arguments
can be made to
otherwise, regardless of validity. As far as they are
concerned the
discussion of ARC vs. GC is closed and decided. ARC is
the only path
forward to the bright and glorious future of D. ARC most
efficiently solves
all memory management problems ever encountered.
Peer-Reviewed Research and
the Scientific Method be damned! ALL HAIL ARC!
Most of us know and understand the issues with ARC and that
with a GC. Many of us have seen how they play out in systems
level development. There is a good reason all serious driver
and embedded development is done in C/C++.
A language is the compiler+std as one unit. If Phobos
depends on the GC, D depends on the GC. If Phobos isn't
systems level ready, D isn't systems level ready. I've heard
arguments here that you can turn off the GC, but that
equates to rewriting functions that already exists in Phobos
and not using any third-party library.
At Sociomantic, that is exactly what we have done. Phobos is
almost completely unusable at the present time.
I personally don't think that ARC would make much difference.
The problem is that *far* too much garbage is being created.
And it's completely unnecessary in most cases.
To take an extreme example, even a pauseless, perfect GC,
wouldn't make std.json acceptable.
Why would anyone seriously consider that as an option?
Embedded C++ has std:: and third-party libraries where
memory is under control?
Realistically D as a systems language isn't even at the
hobby stage.
We're using D as a systems language on a global commercial
scale. And no, we don't use malloc/free. We just don't use
Phobos.
Maybe I'm thinking too much embedded, which I admit isn't fair
on D and at this stage maybe not a realistic comparison.
Yeah, I dunno what "systems language" means really.
For me it means you can write an OS with it, even if some tiny
parts require the use of Assembly glue.
--
Paulo
