On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:14:19 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:06:03 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
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.
Oh and you should also take a look at Newlisp
I certainly wont if you don't even bother explain why I should.
'cause it's memory-safe LISP and without a GC?
