In conclusion, stack allocation must be destroyed

[FeepingCreature]

On Tuesday, 19 July 2022 at 11:54:17 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
>
>
> If stack allocation is removed and everything will be heap 
> allocated, then it will be the day i get rid of D
>
> If compilers bugs there are, they should be fixed
>
> I don't understand why you even make that suggestion, a 
> language without stack allocation can't be taken seriously

Different usecases. To be clear, my take is that things should be 
stack allocated exactly iff they are value types. (By preference, 
immutable value types.) And heap allocated iff they're reference 
types. Arrays are reference types, so they should be heap 
allocated. Objects ditto. Simple and predictable. I just don't 
see the advantage in cleverly stack allocating arrays; it seems 
like an invitation to danger that's not worth the benefit. If you 
want a stack allocated fixed-size list, you should use an idiom 
that always stack allocates it, but also reliably copies it to 
callers and protects it from unintentional mutation. Stack 
allocating T[] overloads the abstraction, IMO.