4 ms·

There was at least the CS defying claim of "no GC, no leaks, simpler than rust" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was along these lines). Sounds easy when you just writ

by c-cube 6y ago

There was at least the CS defying claim of "no GC, no leaks, simpler than rust" (I'm paraphrasing, but it was along these lines). Sounds easy when you just write it as a checkbox on a list of exciting features.

delian66 6y ago
There is no GC, and the language is indeed simpler than rust. The "only" thing missing for now is "no leaks", but we are working on it. You may be interested in https://aardappel.github.io/lobster/memory_management.html https://aardappel.github.io/lobster/memory_management.html .
- vlang1dot0 6y ago
  > regarding lobster memory management: > the scope of anonymous functions cannot outlive variables' scope they reference, however V plans full closure support > lobster compiles whole codebase at once (so it can properly track data flow across module boundaries), however V plans incremental compilation support > both points are direct consequence of lobster's choice for memory management, ie solving them would mean moving away from lobster's strategy as far as I undersand https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/1247 https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/1247 Lobster's approach at least has some theoretical rigorousness to it. What V is doing is quite different both in terms of the implementation and the requirements from the language itself and they have never been shown how their version is sound.