Memory safety depends entirely on GC ?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 01:43:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> This is a free world. Walter and I are working on a DIP. Please 
> work on yours. I can't promise we'll choose to your liking, but 
> this is the one way you can make your point heard and 
> understood. What doesn't work is trash talk.
>
> I guarantee I recognize brilliance when I see it. So if you 
> have a brilliant idea, it won't be missed. Have at it. One 
> thing I cannot do is choose a solution that you prefer over one 
> I prefer - this does remain a subjective topic. I can't help 
> it. But please don't consider me an idiot because I don't like 
> what you propose.
>

I don't think you are being fair here. Even if not formally 
expressed as a DIP, at least Mark and myself have come up with 
fairly detailed explanations, in topic you participated in, so we 
can't really do as if it didn't existed. Also, I do not think 
this is a subjective matter. Yes there is a part of it that is 
matter of taste and is subjective, but overall there is a big 
chunk of objectively discussable things is there proposal, like 
language complexity and expressiveness added to the language.

But here is mostly what I think is going on. We are discussion 
various issues, including make the GC faster, enable safe RC, 
make @nogc more usable (for instance exception usability), safe 
ref, enforcing type qualifier contraints, and so on...

For each of these issues, solution are proposed. What I (and I 
think Mark would agree) propose would solve them all. Yes this is 
more complex than any of the solution proposed for each of these. 
But this is way simpler, and enable way more than having a 
unique, simpler solution for each of these problems.