new D2.0 + C++ language

[Weed]

Denis Koroskin пишет:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:54:10 +0300, Weed <resume755 at mail.ru> wrote:
> 
>> naryl пишет:
>>> Weed Wrote:
>>>> naryl яПНяПНяПНяПНяПН:
>>>>> Weed Wrote:
>>>>>> BCS яПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПНяПН:
>>>>>>> Yes you can be
>>>>>>> very careful in keeping track of pointers (not practical) or use
>>>>>>> smart
>>>>>>> pointers and such (might end up costing more than GC)
>>>>>> I am do not agree: GC overexpenditure CPU or memory. Typically, both.
>>>>> I wouldn't be so sure about CPU:
>>>>> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/debian/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gdc&lang2=gpp&box=1
>>>>>
>>>> You should not compare benchmarks - they depend on the quality of the
>>>> testing code.
>>>
>>> Then find a way to prove that GC costs more CPU time than explicit
>>> memory management and/or reference counting.
>>
>> I suggest that reference counting for -debug.
>> Yes, it slows down a bit. As invariant{}, in{}, out(){}, assert()
> 
> Yeah, ref-count your objects in debug and let the memory leak in release!

Not leak - that may be a reference to non-existent object.

The design of "invariant{}" does not reveal all problems with the class
in all cases which compiled to the release. So that they abandon
invariant{}?

Yes, this language is the same danger as the C++.