manual memory management

[Mehrdad]

On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 11:10:40 UTC, dennis luehring 
wrote:
> Am 09.01.2013 11:21, schrieb Mehrdad:
>> Come to think of it, C++ allocators are meant for exactly this:
>> throwing away an entire batch of objects in 1 go. Beats GCs any
>> day.
>
> but a gc is much more generic then a specialized allocator
>
> redefine you scenario please: are we talking about many,any or 
> special program situations?

We're talking about a language that should be able to handle any 
realistic situation.

>
> for my understanding there is no one-for-all-perfect-solution 
> but many perfect-solution-for-excatly-this-case
>
> that is the reason for having ref-counting & GCs around

Yeah we agree on that, no discussion there.


Speaking of which, I have a feeling what I said didn't send the 
message I meant:

I didn't mean we should reference-count EVERYTHING. Allocators, 
etc. have their places too -- and they all under manual (or 
automatic, whatever you wish to call it) memory management.


My entire point during this discussion has been that you _don't_ 
_require_ a GC for anything, unlike what Walter said. Manual 
(/automatic/whatever you want to call it) memory management can 
take its place just fine.