On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 17:03:58 UTC, Dave Jones wrote:
On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 14:56:31 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
ooh better last sentence


D's GC implementation follows in the footsteps of industry giants without compromising experts' ability to realize maximum potential from the machine.

If D had a decent garbage collector it might be a more convincing argument. If going malloc didnt lose you a bunch of features and bring a bunch of other stuff you need to be careful of, that might be a good argument too.

I mean a good quality GC and seamless integration of manual memory management would be a pretty good argument to make, but D has neither of those ATM.

What are D's limitations on do-it-yourself reference counting?

Reply via email to