On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:28:01PM +0000, Vic via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 17:13:04 UTC, Peter Alexander wrote: > >On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 16:56:56 UTC, Vic wrote: > >>If GC is so good, why not make it an option, have a base lib w/o GC. > > > >Much of Phobos already is GC free. The parts that aren't should be > >easy to convert to use user-supplied buffers. Please add enhancement > >requests for cases where there isn't a GC-free alternative to a > >standard library routine. > > If that is true, I may even do a $ bounty to make Phobos GC free. > > I may do the same, $ bounty on vibe.d port to GC free. > > I don't know D enough to be able to do that, but good news to me. [...]
Over the last year or so, IIRC, there has been a push (a slow but nonetheless steady push) to make as much of Phobos GC-free as possible. I'd say most (all?) of std.algorithm and std.range should be GC-free by now, and probably many of the others can be made GC-free quite easily with the tools that we now have. AFAIK some work still needs to be done with std.string; Walter for one has started some work to implement range-based equivalents for std.string functions, which would be non-allocating; we just need a bit of work to push things through. DMD 2.066 will have @nogc, which will make it easy to discover which remaining parts of Phobos are still not GC-free. Then we'll know where to direct our efforts. :-) T -- Elegant or ugly code as well as fine or rude sentences have something in common: they don't depend on the language. -- Luca De Vitis
