On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 11:10:40 UTC, dennis luehring
wrote:
Am 09.01.2013 11:21, schrieb Mehrdad:
Come to think of it, C++ allocators are meant for exactly this:
throwing away an entire batch of objects in 1 go. Beats GCs any
day.
but a gc is much more generic then a specialized allocator
redefine you scenario please: are we talking about many,any or
special program situations?
We're talking about a language that should be able to handle any
realistic situation.
for my understanding there is no one-for-all-perfect-solution
but many perfect-solution-for-excatly-this-case
that is the reason for having ref-counting & GCs around
Yeah we agree on that, no discussion there.
Speaking of which, I have a feeling what I said didn't send the
message I meant:
I didn't mean we should reference-count EVERYTHING. Allocators,
etc. have their places too -- and they all under manual (or
automatic, whatever you wish to call it) memory management.
My entire point during this discussion has been that you _don't_
_require_ a GC for anything, unlike what Walter said. Manual
(/automatic/whatever you want to call it) memory management can
take its place just fine.
