Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Adam Wilson]

On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 06:48:28 -0800, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp at progtools.org>  
wrote:

> Am 02.02.2014 15:11, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe:
>> On Sunday, 2 February 2014 at 11:23:56 UTC, JR wrote:
>>> I *seem* to remember reading here that you and Walter were
>>> increasingly growing to favor ARC, but I can't find the post.
>>
>> Personally, I think ARC is a waste of time and none of the arguments
>> I've seen for it are convincing. Improving the Gc implementation would
>> be a much bigger win.
>
> It might be that ARC will be a solution given the recent work in  
> Objective-C, ParaSail, Rust and the misterious M#.
>
> I was even surprised to discover that Cedar actually used RC with a GC  
> just for collecting cycles.
>
> What I don't like is using Objective-C as a poster child for ARC,  
> because the only reason it exists, is that Apple engineers weren't able  
> to write a GC for Objective-C that didn't core dump left and right.
>
> Apple of course sold the history in a different way.
>
> --
> Paulo

I just want to point out that in the comments of Joe Duffy's latest post  
on M# he explicitly stated that M# is still C# semantics, and specifically  
he says that all existing C# code will compile with M#, since ARC would by  
very fact of it's nature require the language semantics to change, it's  
extremely unlikely that M# will use ARC. Especially since they have access  
to a GC guru. For a ridiculously easy example, what do you do when one  
object implements .Dispose() and another one does not?

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator