On Sunday, 21 September 2014 at 01:46:13 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 9/20/14, 5:30 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Saturday, 20 September 2014 at 16:27:33 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
I don't think ARC is needed.
library RC + borrowing + uniqueness/moving = WIN
s/WIN/Rust/
Well Rust does some things well. We are going in the same
direction
anyway (type qualifier, uniqueness) expect we do it in an ad
hoc manner
that is guaranteed to yield a C++ish result.
Rust looked a lot more exciting when I didn't know much about
it. -- Andrei
Ho come on, there is a reason why I'm here and not on rust's
mailing list. I'm aware of various shortcomings of rust. Reading
my message as a promotion of rust is a gross strawman.
And here is the thing. You and Walter closed one door to this
kind of feature when discussed with Bartoz a while ago and won't
admit you are wrong. Then whole thing degenerate in some
ridiculous church war where all rhetorical trick and logical
fallacy is good to use.
That is pretty much how it degenerated with the concept vs static
if discussion. The whole debate become completely ridiculous
(yes, your dismissal of concept is almost as ridiculous as
Bjarne's rebuttal of static if). Because at this point, this is
not about what is best, but about who is right.
Back to the subject, that door was closed few years ago. Now we
are discussing pile of hacks again and again and again. The final
complexity is WAY higher than the initial proposal. Be it
Bartoz's, rust's, isolated or whatever variation of the concept,
this is pretty much a given by now that it is needed.
As far as I'm concerned, isolated/owned (not even talking about
rust's concepts like burrowing) on the GC should probably be
valid in @nogc, and only the promotion to TL, shared or immutable
heap should be invalid in @nogc. You combine that with require
that you throw isolated/owned/whatever, and the whole discussion
we are having here becomes moot (as well as various it can reduce
friction between the GC world and the non GC world greatly).
