Would reference counted classes by default be too much of a change? Is it a bad idea? Currently there a changes in the language where you can avoid the reference count, right?
Combination both the rc and the stop-the-world gc, for the cycles.

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 17:52:16 UTC, sclytrack wrote:

Since classes are reference type, I think it can be done. If I'm wrong please explain why. Now, I think there might problems with existing code as there is no concern about the RC when classes are passed around. However, for new code this can be mitigated.

In practice this would lead to RC classes while other structures would still be garbage collected. This would reduce the amount of garbage collected memory which could be beneficial.

What I would find interesting is if this would enable deterministic destruction of classes.

It's an interesting subject and could be a half way step to more a more versatile memory management.

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 17:52:16 UTC, sclytrack wrote:

This isn't happening until DIP 1000 passes successfully(which isn't anytime soon, unfortunately).

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 18:04:59 UTC, IGotD- wrote:

For deterministic object destruction, there's the scope storage class:

scope class_instance = new class();
scope(exit) class_instance.destroy

Isn't the exact same as real RC, but then you can use automem for C++ style reference counting if you want.

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 18:33:56 UTC, Tejas wrote:

scope class_instance = new class();
scope(exit) class_instance.destroy

One or the other. The scope(exit) will still fire on scope exit in the case of auto class_instance, and the object will still be destructed on scope exit without any such scope(exit) in the case of scope class_instance.