Smart pointers instead of GC?

Frank Bauer y at z.com
Sat Feb 1 18:16:07 PST 2014


Agreed. We must keep the GC in D and not change its semantics 
(certainly its performance to be sure).

I would not even want to go the Rust way (their latest anyway, it 
keeps changing, mostly for the better) of relegating the GC to a 
library type Gc<T>. It should remain part of the language for the 
majority of developers who benefit from it.

Again, I agree, making life harder for people who wish to use GC 
would not be acceptable. I enjoy the GC for non-critical apps.

What I am for is an opt-in solution for GC, not necessarily, as 
the OP implies, favoring smart pointers over GC, but for both 
being on an equal footing.

Let developers who strive for ultimate performance choose their 
tool and let D set the standard for what is possible with a 
modern language.

It might be a minority issue overall, but a significant one here 
in these forums, from what I gather.

The D implementers will decide if the two ways of memory 
management can be reconciled and if it's worth the effort. +1 
from me on both.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list