The "no gc" crowd

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 09.10.2013 17:49, schrieb dennis luehring:
> Am 09.10.2013 17:46, schrieb Paulo Pinto:
>> Am 09.10.2013 16:30, schrieb Manu:
>>> On 9 October 2013 17:31, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com
>>> <mailto:newshound2 at digitalmars.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 10/9/2013 12:29 AM, Manu wrote:
>>>
>>>         Does anyone here REALLY believe that a bunch of volunteer
>>>         contributors can
>>>         possibly do what apple failed to do with their squillions of
>>>         dollars and engineers?
>>>         I haven't heard anybody around here propose the path to an
>>>         acceptable solution.
>>>         It's perpetually in the too-hard basket, hence we still have the
>>>         same GC as
>>>         forever and it's going nowhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>     What do you propose?
>>>
>>>
>>> ARC. I've been here years now, and I see absolutely no evidence that the
>>> GC is ever going to improve. I can trust ARC, it's predictable, I can
>>> control it.
>>> Also, proper support for avoiding the GC without severe inconvenience as
>>> constantly keeps coming up. But I don't think there's any debate on that
>>> one. Everyone seems to agree.
>>
>> As someone that is in the sidelines and doesn't really use D, my opinion
>> should not count that much, if at all.
>>
>> However, rewriting D's memory management to be ARC based will have
>> performance impact if the various D compilers aren't made ARC aware.
>>
>> Then there is the whole point of rewriting phobos and druntime to use
>> ARC instead of GC.
>>
>> Will the return on investment pay off, instead of fixing the existing GC?
>>
>> What will be the message sent to the outsiders wondering if D is stable
>> enough to be adopted, and see these constant rewrites?
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>>
>
> not manual ARC - compiler generated ARC - so there is no need for rewrite
>

There will be a need for rewrite, if the code happens to have cyclic 
references.

--
Paulo