On 2016-07-08 19:07, Luís Marques wrote:

> I was referring to the stack trace on segfault, but regarding the user
> of debuggers on a Mac with D, most of the time it doesn't work very well
> for me. I think last time I used lldb (maybe last week) when I tried to
> print something in a D program nothing would happen, not even an error.
> Now that lldc is more up-to-date I'll check if that helps lldb get less
> confused.

On OS X when an application segfaults a crash report will be generated. It's available in the Console application.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:06:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 17:03:26 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 16:58:49 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> I've never been to a lecture/presentation where "garbage collection" did not mean "tracing garbage collection".
>> then you probably watched some... wrong lections. ;-)
>
> Nah, they were experienced language designers and researchers.

then i won't trust a word they said.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 19:12:46 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> then i won't trust a word they said.

There aren't many people you trust then... Seriously, in academic contexts a statement like «X is a garbage collected language» always means tracing. It would be very odd to assume that X used reference counting.

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 07:16:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> There aren't many people you trust then...
exactly. 99% of people are idiots.

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 08:43:03 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 07:16:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> There aren't many people you trust then...
> exactly. 99% of people are idiots.

100%

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 08:45:21 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 08:43:03 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 07:16:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>> There aren't many people you trust then...
>> exactly. 99% of people are idiots.
>
> 100%

it depends of rounding mode.

On Sunday, 10 July 2016 at 03:25:16 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>
> Just like there is no C++ book that does not rant about how great RAII is... What do you expect from a language evangelic? The first Java implementation Hotspot inherited its technology from StrongTalk, a Smalltalk successor. It was not a Java phenomenon, and FWIW both Lisp, Simula and Algol68 were garbage collected.

Please stop intentionally missing the point. I don't care if Leonardo Da Vinci already had invented GC - which wouldn't surprise me - but this is not the point. My point is that GC became a big thing in the late 90ies early 2000s which is in part owed to Java having become the religion of the day (not Lisp or SmallTalk)[1]. D couldn't have afforded not to have GC when it first came out. It was expected of a (new) language to provide GC by then - and GC had become a selling point for new languages.

[1] And of course computers had become more powerful and could handle the overhead of GC better than in the 80ies.

> What was "new" with Java was compile-once-run-everywhere. Although, that wasn't new either, but it was at least marketable as new.
>
>> Java was the main catalyst for GC - or at least for people demanding it. Practically everybody who had gone through IT courses, college etc. with Java (and there were loads) wanted GC. It was a given for many people.
>
> Well, yes, of course Java being used in universities created a demand for Java and similar languages. But GC languages were extensively used in universities before Java.

>> Yes, it didn't last long. But the fact that they bothered to introduce it, shows you how big GC was/is.
>
> No, it shows how demanding manual reference counting was in Objective-C on regular programmers. GC is the first go to solution for easy memory management, and has been so since the 60s. Most high level languages use garbage collection.

It wasn't demanding. I wrote a lot of code in Objective-C and it was perfectly doable. You even have features like `autorelease` for return values. The thing is that Apple had become an increasingly popular platform and more and more programmers were writing code for OS X. So they thought, they'd make it easier and reduce potential memory leaks (introduced by not so experienced Objective-C coders) by adding GC, especially because a lot of programmers expected GC "in this day and age".

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 09:30:37 UTC, Chris wrote:
> Lisp or SmallTalk)[1]. D couldn't have afforded not to have GC when it first came out. It was expected of a (new) language to provide GC by then - and GC had become a selling point for new languages.

This is not true, it is just wishful thinking. D was harmed by the GC, not propelled by it. I am not missing any point, sorry. Just go look at what people who gave up on D claim to be a major reason, the GC scores high...


> It wasn't demanding. I wrote a lot of code in Objective-C and it was perfectly doable.

Of course it was doable, but developers had trouble getting it right. In Objective-C Foundation you have to memorize what kind of ownership functions return. A responsibility which ARC is relieving the developer from. Autorelease-pools does not change that, and you have to take special measures to avoid running out of memory with autorelease pools as it is a very simple region-allocator (what Walter calls a bump--allocator) so autorelease pools are not a generic solution.

Objective-C had a very primitive manual RC solution that relied on conventions. They added a GC and ARC and only kept ARC. As simple as that.

C++ actually has much robust memory management that what Objective-C had.

On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 08:55:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 08:45:21 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 08:43:03 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> On Monday, 11 July 2016 at 07:16:57 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>>>> There aren't many people you trust then...
>>> exactly. 99% of people are idiots.
>>
>> 100%
>
> it depends of rounding mode.

101%

On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 08:40:00 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 7/8/2016 2:36 PM, Luís Marques wrote:
>> On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 21:26:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> Only on Windows, and that's a common source of frustration for me :(
>>>
>>> Linux too.
>>
>> Not by default, right?
>
> -g

Well, it doesn't work for me on Linux with the latest DMD, even with -g.
To be clear, the whole context was "Not by default, right? Only with the magic import and call."