On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 20:56:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 at 18:52:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
The only rebuttal to all of this is "Walter and I are happy
with DIP25, and the fact of the matter", while everybody else
is wondering what there is to be happy about.
To be fair, you haven't really said much better. You're
claiming that it's clear that it's a failure, whereas Andrei is
saying that he doesn't see a problem with it. No concrete
arguments are being given. The closest is that you think that
the fact that we need something like DIP 74 means that DIP 25's
advantage of being simple is lost and that that somehow shows
that DIP 25 is a failure.
That's not true. I explained in this thread why it is too
limited, most notably :
1/ It was barely able to provide a non GC managed array type.
More details here:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mcg8qq$1mbr$1...@digitalmars.com
Notably, it is impossible to reclaim the memory eagerly, but only
to clean all memory at once when all reference to one of the
memory location is gone. This in turn lead to the need to pretty
much have a memory allocator in the array. And jump through many
hoops.
2/ It is completely unable to handle reference types (hence
DIP74).
Note that if you don't have indirection, there is no memory
allocation problem to begin with as value type will be either on
stack or involve some reference at some point.
But this whole thing is really a shift of the burden of proof.
What do DIP25 enabled that is really worth it ?
