DIP74 - where is at?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/12/15 4:38 PM, Marc Schütz wrote:
> The problem is the signals we get from you and Walter. From various
> posts (or lack of response to certain questions) and the way you've
> treated this entire topic so far, I got the impression that you both are
> opposed to anything similar to Rust's approach. Unfortunately, we know
> that Rust's approach (or other solutions involving linear type systems)
> is the only thing that can provide a compiler-verifiable free-at-runtime
> solution. That's the real stalemate as I see it. I hope you see how
> that's not particularly motivating.

Yes, I agree. Experience with Rust is still young, but there seems to 
have already been a backlash; programmers try it and it's just too 
arcane to use in constant preoccupation about them ownership rules.

Copying linear types and going whole-hog stealing the ownership system 
from Rust doesn't sound like the best strategy to Walter and myself. At 
least one PL researcher whose opinion I trust believes linear types 
don't have a future.

D has its own context and its own approach to matters. I believe 
creative solutions are possible that achieve much of what we need 
without going the Rust way, which seems not appropriate for us.

I agree that DIP74 has problems; it has had several corner cases that 
needed patching. That's a signal DIP74 doesn't quite cut with the grain. 
What we need here is good creative work that takes us where we want to 
be without breaking the complexity bank.

BTW where we want to be is: expressive reference counting without loss 
of @safe-ty and hopefully good uniqueness control again with @safe-ty 
and possibly a bit of compiler help.


Andrei