cross post hn: (Rust) _ _ without GC

[anonymous via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 23:21:17 UTC, Vic wrote:
> I am not saying no GC; I am saying:
> a) something needs to be moved out of core.

And many don't agree.

> If not GC, what would you move downstream?
>
> b) move, not remove.

Move where? There is no downstream. There are no hordes of
developers waiting for the GC to be decoupled from druntime, so
that they can finally start working on it. The same people would
work on it. There would be no concentration of effort on other
areas.

> So you can plug in any gc implementation you like - the current 
> GC if you still like it.

I think the GC is supposed to be somewhat pluggable. If it can be
made more pluggable, I don't think anyone would object.

Would the non-core GC still be shipped with releases? Could the
language and Phobos still rely on a GC being there?

If so, I see no point in any re-branding. The personnel wouldn't
change. It would still be perceived as simply D's GC.

If not, that would be a huge breaking change. The language and
Phobos would need a major overhaul to be compatible with an
optional GC. Everything D under the sun would either have the
non-core GC as a dependency, need a major overhaul, or die. The
cost to make it happen would be high. The only benefit I can see
would be a signal to end-users that the GC isn't quite there yet.
I don't think it would be a good move.