Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/3/14, 12:21 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/14, 6:57 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
>>> Anyone asking for the addition of ARC or owning pointers to D, gets
>>> pretty much ignored. The topic is "Smart pointers instead of GC?",
>>> remember? People here seem to be more interested in diverting to
>>> nullable, scope and GC optimization. Telling, indeed.
>>
>> I thought I made it clear that GC avoidance (which includes
>> considering built-in reference counting) is a major focus of 2014.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> Andrei, I am sorry to report that anything other than complete removal
> of the GC and replacement with compiler generated ARC will be
> unacceptable to a certain, highly vocal, subset of D users.

Why would you be sorry? "It is what it is", "customer is always right" 
etc. If we deem that important then we should look into supporting that 
scenario.

> No arguments
> can be made to otherwise, regardless of validity. As far as they are
> concerned the discussion of ARC vs. GC is closed and decided. ARC is the
> only path forward to the bright and glorious future of D. ARC most
> efficiently solves all memory management problems ever encountered.
> Peer-Reviewed Research and the Scientific Method be damned! ALL HAIL ARC!
>
> Sadly, although written as hyperbole, I feel that the above is fairly
> close to the actual position of the ARC crowd.

I'm going on a limb here, but it seems you're not convinced :o).


Andrei