4 ms·

`Rc` and `Arc` have weak references which have worked just fine for me to break cycles in a graph. Not saying my use case is the most complex, but I haven't not

• zozbot234 5y ago
  But the whole point of weak references is that they don't get shared ownership (i.e. extend the lifetime) of their referenced values. That's not doing GC. They're fine when there's always some other (strong) reference that will ensure whatever lifetime is needed, but that's not the general case that GC is intended for.
  • nu11ptr 5y ago
    Weak pointers don't create a strong reference, correct, and that is exactly what is needed to break a cycle. Since it is a cycle, there is some other "owning" strong reference out there. Every use case I've seen generally has an obvious strong and weak reference (usually parent vs child). I'm sure there are trickier corner cases, but that is the typical IMO. For everything else, Rust has no need for a tracing GC, as it has "compile time" GC via static lifetime analysis which is much better IMO already and often avoid heap allocation all together.
• jerf 5y ago
  If your data is "mostly a tree but has the occasional back reference I can easily identify as a back reference", that works great and I've used it in other languages. But in the limit, as your data becomes maximally "graphy" and there isn't much you can do about it, this ceases to be a viable option. You have to be able to carve a "canonical tree" out of your graph for this to work and that's not always possible. (Practically so, I mean. Mathematically you can always define a tree, by simple fiat if nothing else, but that doesn't help if the only available definitions are not themselves practical.)
  • nu11ptr 5y ago
    Fair point - so far I've been lucky enough to avoid such use cases