Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Manu]

On 4 February 2014 19:59, Don <x at nospam.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 03:43:53 UTC, ed wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>

I agree here. A new collector can't distract from the task of reducing the
amount of garbage produced in the first place.

I've never suggested ARC will make a wild difference in terms of
performance in the standard use case, that's not the point (although I do
imagine it would be faster).
I'm saying that ARC is not fundamentally incompatible with many kinds of
workloads, and offers the application a level of flexibility that's not
available under a GC alone. It's an enabler for some whole new industries
to use D with confidence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20140205/e6404e42/attachment.html>