Smart pointers instead of GC?

[woh]

  Any system that forces a single way of handling memory as the 
only viable method, be it GC( as D currently does), or ARC, is 
undesirable to me

   Rust seems to have found a very nice model, and even cpp with 
value/unique/rc/weak is IMO superior to what D currently offers

On Monday, 3 February 2014 at 22:51:50 UTC, Frank Bauer wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> 2. Work on Phobos to see what can be done about avoiding 
>> unnecessary allocation. Most likely we'll need to also add a 
>> @nogc flag.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 4. Work on the core language and druntime to see how to 
>> seamlessly accommodate alternate GC mechanisms such as 
>> reference counting.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I thought I made it clear that GC avoidance (which includes 
>> considering built-in reference counting) is a major focus of 
>> 2014.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> My apologies then. Not apologizing for stressing this point 
> over and over again, though :)
>
> Just to steal some people's thunder: I want the GC to remain in 
> D as it is. This is not hyperbole or cynicism. I mean it. 
> Having the GC around to clean up after me for noncritical apps 
> is a blessing. Adding ARC and owning pointers would make my 
> (and others) day though.
>
> BTW: Why is most everybody who doesn't like GC obsessed with 
> ARC pointers? I like them for where they are appropriate. But 
> what about a simpler owning pointer that frees automatically 
> when it goes out of scope. It comes at exactly zero runtime 
> cost, just as a "dumb" pointer. You don't have to drag a 
> reference count around with you. It is just a pointer in 
> memory. All its semantics are enforced at compile time. Throw 
> borrowed pointers in the mix, i.e. references to owning 
> pointers that become "frozen" while there are outstanding 
> references to them, and you're all set.
>
> I think this would really be necessary (and sufficient!) to get 
> Rust off your back and whatever half baked language stuff MS is 
> intentionally leaking these days. At least IMHO and others from 
> the *vocal minority*.
>
> I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean by GC 
> avoidance being a major focus of 2014 though. In the long term, 
> can I look forward to writing an absolutely, like in 100 %, 
> like in guaranteed, GC free D app with all of current D's and 
> Phobos' features if I choose to? Or does it mean: well for the 
> most part it will avoid the GC, but if you're unlucky the GC 
> might still kick in if you don't pay attention and when you 
> least expect it?