Tsoding streamed about D

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at 09:26:45 UTC, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 March 2025 at 05:19:08 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 21:10, Martyn via Digitalmars-d 
>> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> - Tsoding made a pretty big fuss about "BetterC disabling 
>>> dynamic arrays" but, again, his behaviour is a mix of humour 
>>> and troll as well.
>>
>> He probably just assumed there should be an array in the 
>> library (and he's right to do so!). It probably didn't occur 
>> to him that things like arrays and maps were intimately tied 
>> to the GC.
>> There should be containers in the library, and then we can 
>> remove that text from the spec.
>> ...but there's not! and there's reasons why...
>
> Despite the fact that they're tied to the GC, I rather assumed 
> one could create a library based version, which could preserve 
> the array and slice syntax for use.  Declaration may well have 
> to differ (using some form of template?)
>
> Albeit they'd likely leak depending upon just how they were 
> used.  c.f. Odin having dynamic arrays despite no GC.

Nothing special, after all Ada, Object Pascal/Delphi, Modula-2, 
Zig, C++ all provide them, also without GC, and without leaking 
assuming correct use, as they use the respective managed features 
available.

So indeed, there would be a way to have them without GC, but 
boils down to having multiple vocabulary types, and libraries 
needing to decide what approach to support.