3 ms·
It does. It just isn't safe. The extra primitives for safer handling of pointers are main advantage of C++, D, Rust, etc. A worthwhile re-incarnagion of Modula-
by nickpsecurity 9y ago
It does. It just isn't safe. The extra primitives for safer handling of pointers are main advantage of C++, D, Rust, etc. A worthwhile re-incarnagion of Modula-3 should have something similar.
- int_19h 9y agoSo the standard library doesn't rely on GC semantics anywhere? As I recall, that's the main problem with D: the standard library basically requires GC. Your code might not require it, but the library is always there. On top of that, it's just too easy to accidentally involve GC by using reference types.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoActually, I dont know. Good question. I tried to quickly get the info but all I found was about I/O. It's done UNSAFE to use platform-specific ways of reducing overhead. Probably no GC semantics there. Anyone curious who can get some Modula-3 source for stdlib might just look to see if UNSAFE is at the top of the routines. Also, if that turns off the GC, Id reason that just putting it in front of a stdlib function that was GC'd might make it work without it unless they screwed up memory management in the code itself.