Disable GC entirely

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 4/10/13 1:33 PM, Manu wrote:
>     It may as well be a mistake that nonvirtual functions are at all
>     part of a class' methods. This has been quite painfully seen in C++
>     leading to surprising conclusions: http://goo.gl/dqZrr.
>
>
> Hmm, some interesting points. Although I don't think I buy what he's
> selling.

That article ain't sellin'. It's destroyin'. It destroys dogma that had 
been uncritically acquired by many. That puts it in a nice category 
alongside with e.g. http://goo.gl/2kBy0 - boy did that destroy.

> It looks like over-complexity for the sake of it to me. I don't buy the
> real-world benefit. At least not more so than the obscurity it
> introduces (breaking the location of function definitions apart), and of
> course, C++ doesn't actually support this syntactically, it needs UFCS.
> Granted, the principle applies far better to D, ie, actually works...
>
>
>     If I designed D's classes today, I'd only allow overridable methods
>     and leave everything else to free functions.
>
>
> Why?

With UFCS the only possible utility of member functions is clarifying 
the receiver in a virtual dispatch. Even that's not strictly necessary 
(as some languages confirm).


Andrei