On 28.04.2011 10:14, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: > That's your C++ experience speaking ;) It seems you just like manual memory > management in c++ and can't see other ways.
This is not true, actually :) I agree, that GC is nice thing for most applications, and I really like it, but, I simply want to have an *option* to *control* memory allocation, if I choose to do so. Rarely, but I do need it (and not only me). > Also dropping language constructs is no go. (this 'avoid' is too vague) I didn't say so - just referring to http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/garbage.html, namely section "D Operations That Involve the Garbage Collector". RT & OS applications are constrained anyway, so I see no problem there. And no, "dropping GC" is not an option. > OK, fighting implicit allocation. With what - refcounting? Manual management - whatever is this. malloc() with following free(), for instance - when there is no need anymore. But I prefer a bit more "natural" (not to everyone, of course) way - using delete. Even with GC, explicit delete may be useful (I've explained already, why). > Anyway, I just want to make sure you get the idea that GC is the default > thing in D, not 'possible under certain circumstances' thing like it is in > C++. Believe me, I do get that idea - using it for many years in Perl & C# :) And I am strictly "pro" GC in D as a default, just want to have more options, that's all - that's why I don't like when those options are phased out with no (obvious to me) reason (which I want to find out). /Alexander
