> It is quite possible and practical to write an OS in D, and it has been
> done.
This is not what I am arguing.
What I dislike is allowing both GC and non-GC allocation styles mixed within
the same program.
The D + GC runtime support is for user apps; D + non-GC is a SPL
When I say "D is not
news:op.urex03gyeav...@steves.networkengines.com...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:02:16 -0400, Cristian Vlasceanu
> wrote:
>
>> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:26:16 -0400, Cristian Vlasceanu
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Back to the slices topic: I
3...@digitalmars.com...
> Cristian Vlasceanu wrote:
>>>> Do custom-allocated objects live on the GC-ed heap?
>>> Not necessarily, e.g. you can malloc some memory and then create an
>>> object there.
>>>
>>
>> I was afraid that may be the case, and
>>
>> Do custom-allocated objects live on the GC-ed heap?
>
> Not necessarily, e.g. you can malloc some memory and then create an object
> there.
>
I was afraid that may be the case, and it is perhaps not a good idea.
Early Managed C++ users found it difficult to deal with pointers to both
mana
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:26:16 -0400, Cristian Vlasceanu
> wrote:
>
> > Back to the slices topic: I agree that my proposed "ref" solution would
> > require code changes, but isn't that true for T[new] as well?
> >
&g
bearophile Wrote:
>
> Can you explain me what are the purposes of D.net?
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
You mean other than the tremendous fun that I am having writing a compiler
back-end? ;)
I guess the idea is to help the language catch on, by spreading it (or a
dialect of it) to as many platforms
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, if I couldn't use Tango, I'd most certainly not use D.NET ;)
> I sort of loathe the .NET runtime libs, except for certain parts.
>
What I meant is that porting the libraries is not in the scope of my project.
Anyway, that is a side discussion.
Back
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Steve Teale wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >> Sean Kelly wrote:
> >>> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
> >>> article
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> >
> I thought one of the benefits of having immutable strings is that
> substrings were just pointers to slices of the original data in Java and
> .NET. So every time I do a substring in Java and .NET, it creates a copy
> of the data? That seems very wasteful, especially when the data is
> immu
>>
>> The idea of slices and arrays being distinct types does seem to have
>> advantages. I've seen a couple of mentions of this lately, but has there
>> been a *rigorous* discussion?
>
> There has been. But there are very good reasons to keep arrays and slices
> the same type. Even in C# and
10 matches
Mail list logo
