Rant time? Rant time.
Ola Fosheim Grøstad
ola.fosheim.grostad at gmail.com
Tue Sep 22 10:00:46 UTC 2020
On Tuesday, 22 September 2020 at 09:47:44 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
> People who ask for required ownership often don't know what
> they are asking for. If ownership (single of course) is
> introduced, many data structures will no longer work. Right now
> one of D's benefits is that many data structures just work out
> of the box and even with GC.
> I want a sea of objects, single ownership is way too limiting.
I believe Microsoft has a research language where ownership is
tied to a group of objects.
I actually think C++'s model works out ok, when you add custom
allocators to the mix. But it would be better if the compiler
could ellide allocations or simply avoid calling side-effect-free
destructors if the entire (local) allocator pool was released. I
also want compiler support for embedded refcounts (shared_ptr is
There is no certain way to establish how memory is allocated and
released in C++, so that does prevent (analytical) optimization
The key challenge is really providing some mechanisms that makes
memory management, initialization and finalization analytically
tractable and providing more optimization opportunities.
(I think "provably memory safe" is too expensive in terms of
development freedom and time, so ignore that aspect. "Safer" is
good enough. "Safe" isn't really needed or realistic.)
More information about the Digitalmars-d