More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/11/2014 8:44 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
>> As long as C++/CX and O-C are brought out here as proven, successful examples
>> for D to emulate here, and there is no acknowledgement that they are not
>> remotely memory safe, I need to continue to point this out.
>
> You should not say that ARC is not safe then, you should say instead that ARC in
> those languages has to be supplemented with unsafe code to be fast enough.

And I did, probably at least a dozen times in this thread, including quotes you 
replied to specifically: "Again, O-C and C++/CX ARC are not memory safe because 
in order to make it perform they provide unsafe escapes from it."


I don't know how I could be clearer.


In the spirit of being clear, I am opposed to any replacement for the GC that:

1. makes it impossible to meet or exceed C++ performance levels
2. is not memory safe
3. implies shipping multiple builds of Phobos, each using a different memory 
management scheme

I am not opposed to ARC as a supplement, even if it is @system only, in 
particular one that can interact with O-C.