On Friday, 22 December 2017 at 12:13:39 UTC, Emma Watson wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 12:21:19 UTC, I Love Stuffing
wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 at 09:54:05 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
"C, Python, Go, and the Generalized Greenspun Law"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7804
I'm still not sure why this precludes GC from just being a
standard library feature vs. a language feature. D is probably
better prepared than other languages in doing that cleanly.
Probably this one could be the answer
I believe so, yes. GC should be a library feature, std library of
the language should be independent of existence of a garbage
collector, and the language itself should not contain features
which are dependent of the existence of a garbage collector.
(strings, maps, unbounded arrays all should have been part of
standard lib IMO and not part of the core language and dependent
of GC.
I wanted to look at D as a "beter C++", with simple and sane
metaprograming and metaligusitic features. It is almost there,
but unfortunately, not 0 cost abstraction without loosing too
much. You depend too much of having garbage collection active. It
works as a "betterC" it seems, but you loose a lot of
functionality which should be in a "better C" and again, a lot
from the standard libraries is lost. Template C++ 2017 works well
for a better C as well, and I retain 0 cost abstraction, decent
(yet inferior to D meta-programming), closures,
exceptions, scopes...
Perhaps Im wrong, I only play with D by several days.
