On 7/10/2014 3:34 AM, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 19:47:02 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Is CDGC's Luca's earlier work on concurrent GC?
Yes.
Great!
I'd state it differently: "Marketing fuss about goroutines is the killer feature
of Go" :) It does not have any fundamental advantage over existing actor model
and I doubt it will matter _that_ much.
Much of the froth about Go is dismissed by serious developers, but they nailed
the goroutine thing. It's Go's killer feature.
Who are "they"?
I've heard it multiple times from people I trust. Sorry I can't be more
specific.
I don't know any serious developer who praises goroutines if he
was not a CSP fan before. I forsee that it will make no impact for D because we
simply don't have resources to advertise it as killing feature (on a same scale
Go did).
Will it be a killer feature for D? No. But it is a valuable feature, and it
looks to me like we can implement it without great effort, and without any
language changes. If it can stop a major client from saying "we're going to use
Go instead of D because of this" then it is worth it.
You are totally missing the point if you consider this even comparable
replacement. Reason why non-nullable types are awesome because you are 100% sure
compiler will force you to handle null cases and if program compiles it is
guaranteed to be safe in that regard. What you propose makes hardly any
difference.
I'll risk annoying everyone by repeating at this point "what do you propose".
Making non-null pointers the default is going to break every D program and so is
not acceptable.
