• Daniel Ribeiro Maciel (2/25) Jul 19 2007 I agree. Since there is a delete keyword, garbage collection should inde...

Daniel Ribeiro Maciel <daniel.maciel gmail.com> writes:

downs Wrote:

 I basically agree with the GC issues.
 
 If it were up to me, I'd integrate a separate mode into the GC, in which it is
only run in debug 
 mode - and breaks on collection! Basically, I'd not use it as a collector per
se, but as a tool to 
 make manual memory cleaning easier.
 
 Apart from that, I agree D is not quite ready for a massively parallel future
- but the strength of 
 the language is such that it can be made to be ready, without requiring any
in-depth changes.
 Take the following example.
 
 foreach (foo; parallel(bar)) { /* do stuff with foo */ }
 
 Looks neat? It can be made to work _today_, with D 1.0 or 2.0, GDC or DMD,
without requiring _any 
 changes to the compiler_, using exclusively language features (about one page
of code) - and even 
 without any significant runtime overhead! :D
 And there's a decent amount of multithreading extensions for D already. Take a
look at StackThreads 
   or DCSP on http://assertfalse.com/projects.shtml , all implemented using a
minimum of machine 
 specific code, and working fine (I think. I hope. :p )
 
  From my (admittedly overoptimistic and fanboyish) perspective, even without
threading built into 
 the language, D is quite prepared for a massively-multithreaded future. :)
 
   --downs

I agree. Since there is a delete keyword, garbage collection should indeed be
optional.