More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7 May 2014 04:55, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 08:39, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 's at least one DIP which received little attention afaict, it's
>>
>> an example of something that I think would probably manifest into code
>> in an experimental space, but clearly couldn't be accepted as a
>> language feature without lots of field time.
>> In lieu of an experimental space, there will be no action.
>>
>> It's an interesting example actually. I think lots feel the DIP isn't
>> really an effective solution, but nobody has the motivation or ideas
>> to refine it. The DIP author clearly has no motivation to test it
>> experimentally, but perhaps that's what it needs to progress?
>
>
> Implementing AST macros is probably quite a big investment in time. I'm
> currently working on other things but I will probably give it a try at some
> point.
>
>
>> What happened to std.serislisation? There was motion there a year or
>> so back... I was looking forward to it, and did some minor reviewing
>> at the time. I wonder if that's an interesting case study? (I haven't
>> looked)
>
>
> To be honest, I got board and started to work on D/Objective-C instead,
> which I know you have interest in as well. But when that is done I will come
> back to std.serialization. If not sooner, I have a short attention span
> sometimes ;)
>
>> Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my post. I've watched people
>> make solid contributions that haven't gotten through. That is
>> discouraging to others considering starting their own work, and for
>> the person who has already put in the effort to continue to do so in
>> the future.
>> The Obj-C thing as an example. Granted, it's a huge feature and has
>> extensive implications. The Authors have said themselves that they
>> agree it's not 'ready' for inclusion... so, what? It sits and rots?
>
>
> No, I'm working on it to making it ready. Feature wise I think it's
> complete. Or rather good enough for inclusion. It supports for more features
> than extern(C++) did when it was added.
>
> --
> /Jacob Carlborg


Haha, nice! I didn't realise that all my examples for hypothetical
consideration came back to just you! :)

So then, your take on an experimental space in the compiler for
features that are still baking seems especially relevant.
Am I talking shit, or do you think the idea has any value? Would it be
valuable to get users testing these (quite large) developments while
they're still baking?