On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 17:49:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
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
That's good news! See, we're getting there, just bear with us.
This begs the question of course, how will this affect existing
code? My code is string intensive.
