digitalmars.D.announce - Re: Interview with InformIT part 2/3
- bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Aug 18 2010
- Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Aug 18 2010
- bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Aug 18 2010
- Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Aug 18 2010
- "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> Aug 18 2010
Walter Bright:The other problem with a pinned/notpinned object is the object itself cannot control who or how someone is pointing to it.
The type system may tell apart three kinds of pointers/references: 1) hand-managed pointers, to GC memory or C heap memory; 2) GC-managed pointers to pinned memory; 3) GC-managed pointers to unpinned memory. But this is a long story, I have already discussed this topic a bit, there are problems with pointers on the stack: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=108544 I am not yet able to design a thing so complex alone, so sorry for the noise :-) I need to learn more and improve, first. Bye, bearophile
Aug 18 2010
bearophile wrote:Walter Bright:The other problem with a pinned/notpinned object is the object itself cannot control who or how someone is pointing to it.
The type system may tell apart three kinds of pointers/references: 1) hand-managed pointers, to GC memory or C heap memory; 2) GC-managed pointers to pinned memory; 3) GC-managed pointers to unpinned memory. But this is a long story, I have already discussed this topic a bit, there are problems with pointers on the stack: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=108544 I am not yet able to design a thing so complex alone, so sorry for the noise :-) I need to learn more and improve, first.
Microsoft's managed C++ on .net comes with multiple pointer types - managed and unmanaged pointers - as far as I know, this was a technical success yet a massive failure with users. I have plenty of experience with multiple pointer types coming from my 16 bit compiler work. I prefer to run screaming from that path.
Aug 18 2010
Walter Bright:Microsoft's managed C++ on .net comes with multiple pointer types - managed and unmanaged pointers - as far as I know, this was a technical success yet a massive failure with users.
How do you define failure? Maybe for D2 multiple pointer types are a failure as you say, but in my opinion "managed C++" is not a language, it's not designed to write complete programs, it's designed to build bridges between C# (dotnet) and C++ (and C, etc). I know people that use managed C++ professionally, no one of them likes to use it, but it seems they will keep using it. So I don't think managed C++ is a failure. Bye, bearophile
Aug 18 2010
bearophile wrote:Walter Bright:Microsoft's managed C++ on .net comes with multiple pointer types - managed and unmanaged pointers - as far as I know, this was a technical success yet a massive failure with users.
How do you define failure?
Nobody wanted to use it.Maybe for D2 multiple pointer types are a failure as you say, but in my opinion "managed C++" is not a language,
It meets every definition of one.it's not designed to write complete programs,
Yes, it is. It was intended to be a big deal. It fell way short of that with users.it's designed to build bridges between C# (dotnet) and C++ (and C, etc). I know people that use managed C++ professionally, no one of them likes to use it, but it seems they will keep using it. So I don't think managed C++ is a failure.
Please revisit the "no one of them likes to use it". Being forced to use something doesn't make that thing a success.
Aug 18 2010
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i4hvjh$91i$1 digitalmars.com...Being forced to use something doesn't make that thing a success.
Unfortunately, I can think of a lot of counterexamples (any monopoly or oligopoly, for instance). But I agree in spirit :)
Aug 18 2010