On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:21:17 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/4/14, 5:06 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Ok, disregard my previous post. I think I understand better what Andrei
is driving at, but it's not obvious, better examples are needed. But
more to the point this is going to make us all equally miserable. The
ARC guys don't get the compiler support needed to make ARC fast.
Of course they could. Compiler can have internal support for RC slices.
Object will need some built-in support anyway.
It
completely ignores cyclic-refs inside the slice.
Wrong. It leaves cyclic references to the GC.
Ok, I can see that.
It doesn't solve the
primary ARC-camp complaint about the reliance on the GC.
Why not?
It still has to be loaded and running. It can still non-deterministically
pause. Yes, the pause may happen less often but they will take a similar
amount of time to run the mark phase as the current, which is
statistically the longest phase.
I already know that they are going to complain loudly because this does
nothing to resolve their central complaint. Also Adam Ruppe brought up an
interesting problem that I didn't understand with slicing in this
configuration. If he could comment that would be appreciated.
The GC now guys
have more hoops to jump-through when working with Phobos.
Why?
New details to corral: Don't forget to add your .toGC() calls now kids!
And it
increases complexity and cognitive load all around.
That comes with the territory. Have no illusion we can add RC support in
any way at no cost.
Yes, but why do it in such a way as to penalize existing practices. The
penalty properly belongs on the new practices.
Andrei
--
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
