On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 19:11:28 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 09:57:41 -0800, Frustrated
<c1514...@drdrb.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 17:30:54 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 11:40:37 UTC, Frustrated
wrote:
And why does Phobos/runtime require the GC in so many cases
when
it could just use an internal buffer? So much effort has
been put
in to make the GC work that it simply has neglected all those
that can't use it as it is.
This is the crux of the problem. It's not so much that D
uses garbage collection as that Phobos is built in a way that
prevents the reuse of existing buffers. It becomes much
harder to sell the language to a GC averse group if it turns
out they can't use the standard library as well. Though I
guess Tango is an option here as a replacement.
Right, and because of the mentality that the GC is one size
that
fits all, phobos got this way. That mentality is still
pervasive.
I call it laziness.
I think that at some point phobos will need to be rewritten...
maybe more .net like(there sense of hierarchy and presentation
is
excellent). Maybe D needs a proper allocator sub system built
in
to get to that point?
You do realize that in .NET the BCL is not GC-optional right.
It GC-allocates like a fiend. What they have is a monumentally
better GC than D. .NET is actually proof that GC's can work
quite well in all but the most extreme edge cases.
Effectively what you are saying is ".NET does it well with a GC
so we need to rewrite Phobos to not use a GC" ... Um wait, what?
I am not saying to Phobos needs to allocate as much as it does,
just that argument itself fails to met a basic standard of
logical coherency.
No, you read way more in that than what I said. I am not talking
about the .NET GC(I or I would have said ".NET GC"). You totally
fabricated what you think I "effectively said".
By writing the phobos like .NET, I mean, in terms of .NET's
organization and structure.
