On Thursday, 26 July 2018 at 21:22:45 UTC, Petar Kirov
[ZombineDev] wrote:
[..]
D on the other hand is (or at least I'm hopeful that it is)
moving away giving magical powers to its runtime or standard
library and is its embracing the spirit of bare bones systems
programming where the programmer is allowed or even encouraged
to implement everything from scratch (cref -betterC) for when
that is the most sensible option.
While C and C++ approach portability by abstracting the
machine, the approaches portability by laying all the cards on
the table and defining things, rather than letting them be
unspecified or at least documenting the implementation
definition.
[..]
That is not too say that we shouldn't try to improve D's spec to
allow more room for compiler optimizations (like the problem that
you can't type instances of TypeInfo as fully read-only, because
of the questionable feature of using them as an abundant pool of
mutexes).
My point is that at least in the near term future, D compilers
shouldn't try to assume they have monopoly (like there only one
right way) on object lifetime, given that everybody in the
community so to speak is busy making their own memory management
scheme. Removing UBs in this area at the cost of limiting
compiler optimizations will at least make the @nogc transition
period smoother for everyone. Though I'm sure there's plenty of
other opportunities for tightening the spec.
