Granted, low latency apps are the minority. C++ apps are a
minority compared to C# and Java combined. Beyond any doubt there
is merit to a GC in all apps that don't have to squeeze the last
bit of performance out of the machine, yes, the vast majority, I
know.
But maybe we should ask ourselves if it makes sense to get the
low latency developers on board, especially if D's syntax remains
basically unchanged in the process. Heck, we could even keep
'new' instead of Rusts '~' for owning pointers.
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:40:20 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 06:33:15 -0800, Frank Bauer <x...@y.com> wrote:
ARC would be a plus for heavily interdependent code. But it
doesn't beat unique_ptr semantics in local use that free their
memory immediately as they go out of scope or are reassigned.
So you want C++ back then? Got it.
Ahem ... no you don't. I tried to make my point as clear as
possible. Unique_ptr *semantics*, e.g. Rusts 'let x = ~X'
*without* GC is as easy to use as 'auto x = new X' *with* GC. In
both cases the runtime takes care of freeing the object without
user intervention.
So newbies should not be turned off, if that is your concern.
In general, I don't understand your arguments against dumping the
GC if it does not make much difference in your code anyways?
Getting rid of mandatory GC would not take away one iota of your
D expressiveness. It means more work on the part of D's
implementers, to be sure.
I'm close to Stuttgart and Ingolstadt where Mercedes Benz and
Audi produce their flagship cars for a tiny minority of
customers. Yet their reputation with the average buyer relies
heavily on how well their top of the line products fare.
Do we want D to be the flagship?
