On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:21:14 -0800, Adam Wilson <flybo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 2/3/14, 6:57 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
Anyone asking for the addition of ARC or owning pointers to D, gets
pretty much ignored. The topic is "Smart pointers instead of GC?",
remember? People here seem to be more interested in diverting to
nullable, scope and GC optimization. Telling, indeed.
I thought I made it clear that GC avoidance (which includes considering
built-in reference counting) is a major focus of 2014.
Andrei
Andrei, I am sorry to report that anything other than complete removal
of the GC and replacement with compiler generated ARC will be
unacceptable to a certain, highly vocal, subset of D users. No arguments
can be made to otherwise, regardless of validity. As far as they are
concerned the discussion of ARC vs. GC is closed and decided. ARC is the
only path forward to the bright and glorious future of D. ARC most
efficiently solves all memory management problems ever encountered.
Peer-Reviewed Research and the Scientific Method be damned! ALL HAIL ARC!
Sadly, although written as hyperbole, I feel that the above is fairly
close to the actual position of the ARC crowd.
That said, I do think that it should be possible to implement the two
side-by-side, although it might require some new keywords.
--
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
