Garbage Collector?

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 09:12:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 09:02:19 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>> On Friday, 28 April 2017 at 08:26:28 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
>> wrote:
>>> If it isn't sound then it isn't worth mentioning...
>>
>> So you claim...
>
> Actually, unsound lifetime management is worse than nothing as 
> far as correctness goes... so I guess it is worth mentioning as 
> a warning rather than a recommendation.

Actually, applying "sound" or "unsound" to D's GC lifetime 
management in general is worse than realizing that whether using 
it for a specific use case is sound or unsound is entirely 
dependent on that use case... so I guess it is worth mentioning 
as a tool a developer should read up on.
Also, you seem to imply that I made a recommendation to use the 
GC's lifetime management. I did not.


>
> If D had ownership pointers then it would've been possible to 
> sort this out, but D is perpetually locked to the current 
> pointer/GC model for reasons that aren't particularly 
> convincing, i.e. beliefs.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. D does not have ownership 
pointers because nobody that wants them has stepped up and
1) Done the work of drafting an informal proposal that *actually 
deals with _all_ of the issues involved*
2) Developed that informal proposal into a DIP
3) Wrote the implementation and sent a PR
Every time it comes up there are ideas, or sometimes even 
reasonably well formed informal proposals, but none of the 
proponents ever actually follows up and improves such proposals 
to the point where all the issues are dealt with. Claiming that D 
doesn't have ownership mechanics because of beliefs when none of 
the (vocal) proponents are willing to actually get down to it and 
*do the work* is, frankly, asinine; do you generally expect 
people to do things for you they aren't interested in without 
recompense?