On 26 June 2013 04:06, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 6/24/2013 1:18 PM, Michel Fortin wrote: > >> And I don't think it is very common in D either. Either way, if D was to >> implement ARC for its own memory allocator instead of the current GC >> (which >> would be great) there's noting to prevent implementing it so that >> reference >> counts could be incremented from the middle address of a memory block, >> it'd be >> quite easy in fact, and quite necessary too because of the way arrays >> work. >> > > From my reading about ARC, it seems to me that we should support it now > rather than later because: > > 1. people will expect it of D > > 2. non-ARC is inherently unsafe > > 3. migrating non-ARC code to ARC is error-prone and a major nuisance > > 4. non-O-C programs can also benefit from ARC (after all, reliance on the > GC is the perennial dealbreaker for people wanting to migrate high > performance code to D) > Yay! Since the conference, I'm finding myself more and more convinced that what I actually want is ARC rather than GC... although this is just a feeling, and completely untested in practise ;) But I have experience with ARC on other platforms, and the fact it results in predictable patterns makes it much easier to work with it.
