On 17/09/2023 11:46 AM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Kidding aside. If you do this, you might as well turn them on
everywhere. After that it's a easy stroll to a non-blocking moving GC,
which would end most complaints about the GC (nobody complains about the
.NET GC anymore).
The scope of each doesn't
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 12:34:24 UTC, Richard (Rikki)
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
Although I do want a write barrier on each struct/class, to
allow for cyclic handling especially for classes.
How dare you bring the High Heresy of write barriers into D! I
thought that it was well
On 17/09/2023 12:25 AM, sighoya wrote:
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 10:22:31 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew
Cattermole
wrote:
The approach that I think will work well for us is to support
reference counting on structs & classes, and make them not adhere to
DIP1000.
Does that mean you
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 10:22:31 UTC, Richard (Rikki)
Andrew Cattermole
wrote:
The approach that I think will work well for us is to support
reference counting on structs & classes, and make them not
adhere to DIP1000.
Does that mean you are against dip1000 or do you want both?
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 21:49:17 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 17:39:41 UTC, M.M. wrote:
[...]
That's unfortunate..
Ikey seems to still want to use D, so the main driving factor
is the contributors, i wonder what are the exact reasons,
pseudo memory safety
On 16/09/2023 9:02 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
I know there are ref-counted languages so theoretically it should be
workable, but the in a language as complex as D there may be dragons on
the edges.
The approach that I think will work well for us is to support reference
counting on structs &
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 21:49:17 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
Ikey seems to still want to use D, so the main driving factor
is the contributors, i wonder what are the exact reasons,
pseudo memory safety can't be the only reason
I would guess that the following is the bigger problem:
"we
