Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Manu]

On 2 February 2014 00:33, Frank Bauer <x at y.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 09:27:18 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
>> For the vast majority of use cases, a GC is the right call and D has to
>> cater to the majority if it wants to gain any significant mindshare at all.
>> You don't grow by increasing specialization...
>>
>
> So catering to the C++ crowd who shun Java and C# not so much for JITing
> their code but precisely for their forced use of a GC is a "minority" issue
> then? Again, please take those of us more serious who don't like a GC to
> interfere with their business and if it's only for "programming hygiene"
> reasons. As you consider handling low latency requirements undue
> "specialisation" anyways.
>
>
> On Saturday, 1 February 2014 at 12:04:56 UTC, JR wrote:
>
>> To my uneducated eyes, an ARC collector does seem like the near-ideal
>> solution
>>
>
> ARC would be a plus for heavily interdependent code. But it doesn't beat
> unique_ptr semantics in local use that free their memory immediately as
> they go out of scope or are reassigned.


Why wouldn't ARC do this?

 I would *dearly* love to have concurrency in whatever we end up with,
>> though. For a multi-core personal computer threads are free lunches, or
>> close enough so.
>>
>
> No they are not. I want to make good use of all the cores I have available
> and I don't want to share them a bit with the GC. It's myyy ... precious.
>
> As you may have guessed, my criticism is harsh because I love the language
> :)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140202/0405c163/attachment-0001.html>