Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 11:13:03 UTC, Don wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 10:32:26 UTC, ed wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 09:59:07 UTC, Don wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 03:43:53 UTC, ed wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 01:36:09 UTC, Adam Wilson 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:04:08 -0800, Manu 
>>>>> <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4 February 2014 06:21, Adam Wilson <flyboynw at gmail.com> 
>>>>>> 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. 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!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of us know and understand the issues with ARC and that 
>>>> with a GC. Many of us have seen how they play out in systems 
>>>> level development. There is a good reason all serious driver 
>>>> and embedded development is done in C/C++.
>>>>
>>>> A language is the compiler+std as one unit. If Phobos 
>>>> depends on the GC, D depends on the GC. If Phobos isn't 
>>>> systems level ready, D isn't systems level ready. I've heard 
>>>> arguments here that you can turn off the GC, but that 
>>>> equates to rewriting functions that already exists in Phobos 
>>>> and not using any third-party library.
>>>
>>> At Sociomantic, that is exactly what we have done. Phobos is 
>>> almost completely unusable at the present time.
>>>
>>> I personally don't think that ARC would make much difference. 
>>> The problem is that *far* too much garbage is being created. 
>>> And it's completely unnecessary in most cases.
>>>
>>> To take an extreme example, even a pauseless, perfect GC, 
>>> wouldn't make std.json acceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why would anyone seriously consider that as an option? 
>>>> Embedded C++ has std:: and third-party libraries where 
>>>> memory is under control?
>>>>
>>>> Realistically D as a systems language isn't even at the 
>>>> hobby stage.
>>>
>>> We're using D as a systems language on a global commercial 
>>> scale. And no, we don't use malloc/free. We just don't use 
>>> Phobos.
>>
>> Maybe I'm thinking too much embedded, which I admit isn't fair 
>> on D and at this stage maybe not a realistic comparison.
>
> Yeah, I dunno what "systems language" means really.

For me it means you can write an OS with it, even if some tiny 
parts require the use of Assembly glue.

--
Paulo