On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 12:07:47 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 11:44:56 UTC, Mike wrote:
Being able to specify an alternate memory manager at
compile-time, link-time and/or runtime would be most
advantageous, and probably put an end to the GC-phobia.
AFAIK, GC is not directly referenced in druntime, so you
already should be able to link with different GC
implementation. If you provide all symbols requested by the
code, the linker won't link default GC module.
Yes, I believe you are correct. I also believe there is even a
GCStub in the runtime that uses malloc without free. What's
missing is API documentation and examples that makes such
features accessible.
Also missing, are language/runtime hooks that could allow users
to try alternative memory management schemes such as ARC and find
what works best for them through experimentation.
In short, IMO, D should not embrace one type of automatic memory
management, they should make it extensible. In time two ore
three high quality memory managers will prevail.
Mike
