2 ms·

Yes and yes. Why on earth would "doesn't solve X" be an argument against that it does Z + Y ? Whereas a GC only does Z. It was an alternative, that does less a

by tjoff 4y ago

Yes and yes. Why on earth would "doesn't solve X" be an argument against that it does Z + Y ? Whereas a GC only does Z. It was an alternative, that does less and doesn't put as much restrictions on the programmer compared to the borrow checker, as you complained about rust and equaled that with not having a GC. And it is deterministic. >While I am all for research into better ways to do RC, please look at the discussion - it is not at all clear that RC would be better, and even theoretically a tracing GC will win. Win what and in what sense? How every GC language has problems with GC tuning is in my opinion a clear indicator that the GC lost. With no real benefits short term and huge downsides down the line - even if you never hit any limits.

kaba0 4y ago
The borrow checker doesn’t give a complete answer to memory management, as dynamic allocation patterns by definition can’t be done at compile time unless you can solve the halting problem. > How every GC language has problems with GC tuning is in my opinion a clear indicator that the GC lost. Citation required. It Just Works in like 99% of cases, and it’s not like there is any solution that covers every edge case. Just look at the thread I linked, there is an example of C++’s RC lingering for a long time after the effective work is done freeing many things.
- tjoff 4y ago
  Did I say it did? The operations are deterministic but dynamic memory is not. But that alone is quite important. Lucky for the non-GC crowd though, as the languages often give you a stronger control over what is allocated on the stack and not. It is an axiom at this point. GC battles are not exactly unheard of on HN. Don't worry, it gets fixed in the upcoming release - has been said for decade after decade. No there is no solution that covers any case. But you pretty much always have to think about memory, so the appeal of using a GC when the only argument in its favor is that you don't have to think about memory is quite unclear.

by tjoff 4y ago

kaba0 4y ago

The borrow checker doesn’t give a complete answer to memory management, as dynamic allocation patterns by definition can’t be done at compile time unless you can solve the halting problem. > How every GC language has problems with GC tuning is in my opinion a clear indicator that the GC lost. Citation required. It Just Works in like 99% of cases, and it’s not like there is any solution that covers every edge case. Just look at the thread I linked, there is an example of C++’s RC lingering for a long time after the effective work is done freeing many things.

tjoff 4y ago
Did I say it did? The operations are deterministic but dynamic memory is not. But that alone is quite important. Lucky for the non-GC crowd though, as the languages often give you a stronger control over what is allocated on the stack and not. It is an axiom at this point. GC battles are not exactly unheard of on HN. Don't worry, it gets fixed in the upcoming release - has been said for decade after decade. No there is no solution that covers any case. But you pretty much always have to think about memory, so the appeal of using a GC when the only argument in its favor is that you don't have to think about memory is quite unclear.