digitalmars.D - Can GC be beneficial - Thread.
- ZZ (8/8) Mar 10 2006 Here is a comment by Andrei Alexandrescu.
- Kris (2/7) Mar 10 2006 I'd agree, except that D does not have deterministic finalization. Far f...
- Mike Capp (8/11) Mar 10 2006 Sure it does. Old-style "auto". It's very limited compared to C++'s
- Kris (6/8) Mar 10 2006 [snip]
- Bruno Medeiros (5/14) Mar 11 2006 And there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :P
- kris (4/24) Mar 11 2006 Aye;
- Bruno Medeiros (6/16) Mar 11 2006 :o ...
Here is a comment by Andrei Alexandrescu. in a very long thread onm the benefits of using a GC. from comp.lang.c++.moderated. I think the one language that can be used to assess a combo of GC, efficiency goals, and deterministic finalization is D. The link: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_thread/thread/84253d37f970dd2b/d63fafb85011e823#d63fafb85011e823 Zz
Mar 10 2006
In article <dus4uo$1b0f$1 digitaldaemon.com>, ZZ says...Here is a comment by Andrei Alexandrescu. in a very long thread onm the benefits of using a GC. from comp.lang.c++.moderated. I think the one language that can be used to assess a combo of GC, efficiency goals, and deterministic finalization is D.I'd agree, except that D does not have deterministic finalization. Far from it.
Mar 10 2006
In article <dusjqh$24jq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...Sure it does. Old-style "auto". It's very limited compared to C++'s deterministic finalization, but in some ways that's the point. It forces users to find out the hard way whether or not that level of support is enough. As a guinea-pig language, I think the bigger worry is people drawing premature conclusions from the not-especially-optimized state of D's current GC. cheers, MikeI think the one language that can be used to assess a combo of GC, efficiency goals, and deterministic finalization is D.I'd agree, except that D does not have deterministic finalization. Far from it.
Mar 10 2006
In article <dusl55$26jl$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Mike Capp says...Sure it does. Old-style "auto". It's very limited compared to C++'s deterministic finalization, but in some ways that's the point.[snip] That's true. I was grimacing about finalization at global scope, which inevitably makes me wince. Local finalization support via scope(x) and/or auto is certainly handy ~ mea culpa. - Kris
Mar 10 2006
Mike Capp wrote:In article <dusjqh$24jq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...And there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :P -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#DSure it does. Old-style "auto". It's very limited compared to C++'s deterministic finalization, but in some ways that's the point. It forces users to find out the hard way whether or not that level of support is enough.I think the one language that can be used to assess a combo of GC, efficiency goals, and deterministic finalization is D.I'd agree, except that D does not have deterministic finalization. Far from it.
Mar 11 2006
Bruno Medeiros wrote:Mike Capp wrote:Aye; yet, I vaguely recall 'delete' does not invoke the dtor ... perhaps the wrong kind of finalization :)In article <dusjqh$24jq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...And there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :PSure it does. Old-style "auto". It's very limited compared to C++'s deterministic finalization, but in some ways that's the point. It forces users to find out the hard way whether or not that level of support is enough.I think the one language that can be used to assess a combo of GC, efficiency goals, and deterministic finalization is D.I'd agree, except that D does not have deterministic finalization. Far from it.
Mar 11 2006
kris wrote:Bruno Medeiros wrote::o ... You should know better than that. :] -- Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#DAnd there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :PAye; yet, I vaguely recall 'delete' does not invoke the dtor ... perhaps the wrong kind of finalization :)
Mar 11 2006