On 24-05-2012 16:53, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 10:30:02 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen <a...@lycus.org>
wrote:
On 24-05-2012 15:49, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:47:23 -0400, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Le 24/05/2012 14:54, Peter Alexander a écrit :
On Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 12:21:02 UTC, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
Hi,
http://dlang.org/class.html#Destructor
"The garbage collector is not guaranteed to run the destructor for
all
unreferenced objects."
What the *hell*? So resources are allowed to arbitrarily leak and the
programmer has to actually expect this to happen?
I really, really hope that this is a documentation error or early
design decision that has since been rectified but with lack of
documentation updates.
I'm pretty sure it's the same in Java.
Finalizers (a.k.a. class destructors) are practically useless.
Java finalizer is a pretty bad design decision. Let's not reproduce
error made in Java in D's destructors.
You actually need a finalizer if you want to have resources that aren't
GC allocated.
-Steve
But that doesn't mean we should have Java finalization. There are many
different forms of finalization, and I do agree that Java is the worst
of all of them.
I only found one definition for finalizer on wikipedia, and it fits D's
definition.
What I think we need is a dispose pattern for objects, like Tango has.
-Steve
Just look at /usr/include/gc/gc.h (from libgc, the Boehm-Demers-Weiser
GC). It has 3 (if not 4) different kinds of finalization. To be
specific, the finalization I believe we need is the *_no_order behavior.
This is the behavior C# and the CLR follow.
--
Alex Rønne Petersen
a...@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
