GC has a "barbaric" destroyng model, I think
ponce via Digitalmars-d-learn
digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Thu Feb 12 03:11:53 PST 2015
On Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 10:24:38 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On 2/12/2015 6:09 PM, weaselcat wrote:
>> On Thursday, 12 February 2015 at 08:33:35 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>> Truth be told, D has no guideline for deterministic
>>> destruction of
>>> managed resources.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> don't complain about people wondering why class destructors
>> don't work
>> when there's no _real_ way to do it in D beyond 'drop down to
>> C level
>> and get going.' D is absolutely horrid for resource management.
>
> I'm not complaining. I'm simply suggesting that the very word
> "destructor" likely plays a role in the misconception that
> class destructors behave as they do in C++. However, I do think
> that when moving from one language to another, there has to be
> a certain expectation that things are going to be different and
> it shouldn't be a surprise when they are.
What I think is that the GC should simply never call the
destructors.
The GC calling class destructors is currently a 50% solution that
provide illusory correctness.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list