On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:55 AM, John Mija <[email protected]> wrote: > Does make sense to have a language with manual memory management since it's > possible to create stuff of low level with a specialized garbage collector?
IMO The problem with traditional non-GC languages isn't that it's not automatic, it's that it's not safe. In other words, the argument for GC is one for safety, not for "resource management is an unimportant detail that the system should do". Safety is the key, not the convenience of not having to think carefully about resource management. As long as the compiler tells you when you get it wrong the question is: does it make sense to take one of the most important performance aspects out of the hands of the programmer? Automating unnecessary detail is good, but also providing safe manual control for when you need it is even better. I think this will be even more the case in the future. Heap sizes are growing tremendously, and the cost of touching memory is growing too. GC performance is therefore, in the sense of being relative to the main CPU workloads, getting worse with time, it seems to me. Putting the programmer back in the loop here (safely) seems like the right call. Seb -- Sebastian Sylvan _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
