On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 at 11:51:07 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 16 April 2014 19:03, JN via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]>wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 at 01:57:29 UTC, Mike wrote:
I don't believe users hesitant to use D will suddenly come to
D now that
there is a @nogc attribute. I also don't believe they want
to avoid the
GC, even if they say they do. I believe what they really
want is to have
an alternative to the GC.
I'd have to agree. I doubt @nogc will change anything, people
will just
start complaining about limitations of @nogc (no array concat,
having to
use own libraries which may be incompatible with phobos). The
complaints
mostly come from the fact that D wants to offer a choice, in
other
languages people just accept what they have. You don't see C#
developers
complaining much about having to use GC, or C++ programmers
all over the
world asking for GC. Well, most of the new games (Unity3D) are
done in C#
nowadays and people live with it even though game development
is one of the
biggest C++ loving and GC hating crowd there is.
Another issue is the quality of D garbage collector, but adding
alternative memory management ways doesn't help, fragmenting
the codebase.
I don't really have an opinion on @nogc, but I feel like I'm
one of the
people that definitely should.
I agree with these comments somewhat though.
I have as big a GC-phobia as anyone, but I have never said the
proper
strategy is to get rid of it, and I'm not sure how helpful
@nogc is.
I don't *mind* the idea of a @nogc attribute; I do like the
idea that I may
have confidence some call tree doesn't invoke the GC, but I
can't say I'm
wildly excited about this change. I'm not sure about the larger
implications for the language, or what the result of this will
do to code
at large. I'm not yet sure how annoying I'll find typing it
everywhere, and
whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
I have a short list of things I'm dying for in D for years, and
this is not
on it. Nowhere near. (rvalue temp -> ref args pleeeease! Linear
algebra in
D really sucks!!)
The thing is, this doesn't address the problem. I *want* to
like the GC...
I want a GC that is acceptable.
I am convinced that ARC would be acceptable, and I've never
heard anyone
suggest any proposal/fantasy/imaginary GC implementation that
would be
acceptable...
In complete absence of a path towards an acceptable GC
implementation, I'd
prefer to see people that know what they're talking about
explore how
refcounting could be used instead.
GC backed ARC sounds like it would acceptably automate the
circular
reference catching that people fuss about, while still
providing a workable
solution for embedded/realtime users; disable(/don't link) the
backing GC,
make sure you mark weak references properly.
That would make this whole effort redundant because there would
be no fear
of call trees causing a surprise collect under that environment.
Most importantly, it maintains compatibility with phobos and
all other
libs. It doesn't force realtime/embedded users into their own
little
underground world where they have @nogc everywhere and totally
different
allocation API's than the rest of the D universe, producing
endless
problems interacting with libraries. These are antiquated
problems we've
suffered in C++ for decades that I _really_ don't want to see
transfer into
D.
I'd like to suggest experts either, imagine/invent/design a GC
that is
acceptable to the realtime/embedded crowd (seriously, can
anyone even
_imagine_ a feasible solution in D? I can't, but I'm not an
expert by any
measure), or take ARC seriously and work out how it can be
implemented;
what are the hurdles, are they surmountable? Is there room for
an
experimental fork?
Specially when C# is already blessed on the PS4, although not for
AAA games of course.
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2014/Apr-14.html
--
Paulo
