On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 06:57:34 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 06:56:00 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 22:19:56 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
One thing I'd add is that a GC is *required* if you want to
have a language that guarantees memory safety
Pardon? shared_ptr anyone? You can totally have a language
that only provides new/delete facilities and which only access
to memory through managed pointers like shared_ptr... without
a GC. I don't see where a GC is "required" as you say.
Such a program is guaranteed to have memory leak, unless you
add a GC on top of the managed pointers.
He said _safety_... memory leaks are perfectly safe.
Then again, doesn't Java also have memory leaks when e.g. you
create a thread and never run it? Doesn't C# have memory leaks
when you attach an event handler to a static event and never
remove it?
What exactly does a GC bring to the table here?
