Smart pointers instead of GC?

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:21:14 -0800, Adam Wilson <flyboynw at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:02:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu  
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/14, 6:57 AM, Frank Bauer wrote:
>>> Anyone asking for the addition of ARC or owning pointers to D, gets
>>> pretty much ignored. The topic is "Smart pointers instead of GC?",
>>> remember? People here seem to be more interested in diverting to
>>> nullable, scope and GC optimization. Telling, indeed.
>>
>> I thought I made it clear that GC avoidance (which includes considering  
>> built-in reference counting) is a major focus of 2014.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>
> Andrei, I am sorry to report that anything other than complete removal  
> of the GC and replacement with compiler generated ARC will be  
> unacceptable to a certain, highly vocal, subset of D users. No arguments  
> can be made to otherwise, regardless of validity. As far as they are  
> concerned the discussion of ARC vs. GC is closed and decided. ARC is the  
> only path forward to the bright and glorious future of D. ARC most  
> efficiently solves all memory management problems ever encountered.  
> Peer-Reviewed Research and the Scientific Method be damned! ALL HAIL ARC!
>
> Sadly, although written as hyperbole, I feel that the above is fairly  
> close to the actual position of the ARC crowd.
>

That said, I do think that it should be possible to implement the two  
side-by-side, although it might require some new keywords.

-- 
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator