doob at me.com
Sat Feb 11 10:12:01 PST 2012
On 2012-02-11 18:40, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-02-10 20:23, Zachary Lund wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2012 01:02 PM, Tim Krimm wrote:
>>>> This language would basically be D without the garbage collection.
>>>> For example there would be structures but no classes.
>>>> There would be regular arrays but no dynamic arrays.
>>>> Code that is mostly equivalent to C, but you would still have
>>>> with functions and overloading support,
>>>> and other features like templates etc.
>>>> I think you get the idea.
>>>> What are your thoughts?
>>> I would love this as well. I *think* you wouldn't have to recreate the
>>> language, just recreate the runtime. You can currently use D and can
>>> completely avoid the use of the GC by just using static functions. From
>>> what I understand, dynamic arrays are also controlled and provided
>>> through the runtime. You can also export C symbols if you wanted to.
>> No need to restrict yourself yo static functions. Functions in structs
>> are not virtual and doesn't require the GC.
> Virtual functions don't require the GC either.
No they don't, but the will add other overhead.
More information about the Digitalmars-d