Memory management design

[Paulo Pinto]

On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 at 08:00:55 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 10 July 2013 17:53, Dicebot <public at dicebot.lv> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 at 07:50:17 UTC, JS wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> I am pretty sure stuff like @nogc (or probably @noheap. or 
>> both) will have
>> no problems in being accepted into the mainstream once properly
>> implemented. It is mostly a matter of volunteer wanting to get 
>> dirty with
>> the compiler.
>>
>
> I'd push for an ARC implementation. I've become convinced 
> that's what I
> actually want, and that GC will never completely satisfy my 
> requirements.
>
> Additionally, while I can see some value in @nogc, I'm not 
> actually sold on
> that personally... it feels explicit attribution is a backwards 
> way of
> going about it. ie, most functions may actually be @nogc, but 
> only the ones
> that are explicitly attributed will enjoy that recognition... 
> seems kinda
> backwards.

That is the approach taken by other languages with untraced 
pointers.

Actually I prefer to have GC by default with something like @nogc 
where it really makes a difference.

Unless D wants to cater for the micro-optimizations folks before 
anything else, that is so common in the C and C++ communities.

--
Paulo