3 ms·
I didn't notice the point at which this turned into a discussion about RAII or whatever a GC is in 1990's books' definitions. And why would an arena not be manu
by jstimpfle 7y ago
I didn't notice the point at which this turned into a discussion about RAII or whatever a GC is in 1990's books' definitions. And why would an arena not be manual memory management if I make explicit allocations that make explicit use of such arena, and I free the arena on a suitable occasion? I'm even likely to write the arena myself, but not necessarily.
I have this simple and (in my mind) very useful equation of manual memory management ~ writing code to manage memory. Conversely, GC ~ using an external runtime (such as that in JRE) that helps you to avoid writing any memory management code at the cost of giving up control. Ok, let's lose a sentence about ARC, I don't care if you name it GC or not, and I don't use it.
I'm not interested in other pointless taxonomic discussions. Whatever, man.
- pjmlp 7y agoBecause many languages with GC do offer the necessary tooling for doing low level memory management if one so desires, while still enjoying some safety. Naturally the anti-GC crowd rather switches to their error prone C code instead. Thankfully that is not where the industry is going, eventually looms will be the dominating force, one generation at a time.