radical ideas about GC and ARC : need to be time driven?

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 12:28:47 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> But as long as there can be false pointers, no matter how 
> improbable, there can be no guaranteed destruction, which was 
> my point. Maybe it becomes acceptable at very low 
> probabilities, but it's still a gamble...

A couple of not freed resources should not cause the program run 
out of resources. With precise GC you can get memory leaks too, 
it's always a gamble, so GC may or may not save you, but it still 
can.