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

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.

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

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.
[snip]

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

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


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

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 :)

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