On Sunday, 28 December 2014 at 22:37:48 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 28/12/14 21:08, eles via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Thing is, by now, most of D2 code that is written is
GC-centric.
With some exceptions (e.g. embedded programming), the
Yes. And games. And realtime systems (yes, usually embedded). And
is not only about realtime, it is also about the memory at your
disposal. But you know that already.
But me, for one, I don't see those as exceptions. That exception
for you is my full time work. I see only this. "Some exceptions"
are, for me: desktop applications, client and server
applications, Web, GUIs etc. Minor stuff that I don't even
understand why people even write. They are just some minor
exception.
assumption of a GC isn't so much a problem as the fact that too
many parts of Phobos have been written in a way that doesn't
Yes, yes. As I was telling when rewording what Walter said, there
is one code style when you write for a GC, and another one when
you don't. And it support my assertion that most of the D2 code
written by now is too GC-centric for that to change.
Walter was perfectly right in one of his post when he told: "GC
must be part of language specifications, because otherwise
libraries must be written without assuming that a GC is present."
We're getting there with Phobos. But, I admit, he was visionary.
And I am really worried that throwing the new memory management
mechanism into the game will not mess things. I thing the
appropriate way would be "separate build" for that. Read D3.
allow you to avoid generating garbage (e.g. by passing in
preallocated buffers or suchlike).
That is, you design a language that puts the GC at its heart,
then you fight the compiler and the language to bend it all the
way to get over its implicit behavior. I really understand why
people from the C++ world coming here hit the GC thing like a
wall.
And you charge this already unstable state with a new
mechanism of memory
management that is yet to be designed, not to say about being
written?
I'm really not sure who this "you" is that you're talking about.
Well. This is why English has two meanings of "you". To make it
clear.
I think you might want to do a bit more research into the
context and concerns behind Don's remarks, before you cite
Sociomantic as an argument for keeping deprecated features :-)
Actually, I was citing his opinion to support the contrary idea:
clean up the language of deprecated features. They complicate the
language without giving any help.
