• ZZ <ZZ zz.com> Mar 10 2006
• Kris <Kris_member pathlink.com> Mar 10 2006
• Mike Capp <mike.capp gmail.com> Mar 10 2006
• Kris <Kris_member pathlink.com> Mar 10 2006
• Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> Mar 11 2006
• kris <foo bar.com> Mar 11 2006
• Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> Mar 11 2006

ZZ <ZZ zz.com> writes:

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

Kris <Kris_member pathlink.com> writes:

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.

Mike Capp <mike.capp gmail.com> writes:

In article <dusjqh$24jq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
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.


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,
Mike

Kris <Kris_member pathlink.com> writes:

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.



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

Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> writes:

Mike Capp wrote:
 In article <dusjqh$24jq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
 I think the one language that can be used to assess a combo of GC,
 efficiency goals, and deterministic finalization is D.




 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.
 


And there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :P


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

kris <foo bar.com> writes:

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Mike Capp wrote:
 
 In article <dusjqh$24jq$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...

 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.



 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.


 And there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :P
 
 


Aye;

yet, I vaguely recall 'delete' does not invoke the dtor ... perhaps the 
wrong kind of finalization :)

Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> writes:

kris wrote:
 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 And there is also 'delete', which is pretty deterministic, no? :P


 Aye;
 
 yet, I vaguely recall 'delete' does not invoke the dtor ... perhaps the 
 wrong kind of finalization :)


:o ...
You should know better than that. :]


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D