2 ms·
That's because memory safety has a price: either a GC (which creates interoperability issues if you have two languages with GCs..) or a complexity price like in
by renox 4y ago
That's because memory safety has a price: either a GC (which creates interoperability issues if you have two languages with GCs..) or a complexity price like in Rust..
So these languages stay memory unsafe but tries to minimise the issues caused by the lack of safety.
- avgcorrection 4y agoMaking an effort in language design also has a price.
- still_grokking 4y agoThat's not true. Memory safety could be free. Actually it would even outperform any memory unsafe language, when done right™. The key would be hardware supported automatic memory management. This tech exists since many years but nobody uses it (likely because our "good old friend": patents, which is a death sentence to any good idea). https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-bacon/Bacon12AndThen.pdf https://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-bacon/... https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~kubitron/papers/holistic_runtime/maas-asbd16-hwgc.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~kubitron/papers/holistic_r... https://adept.eecs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/A-Hardware-Accellerator-for-tracing-garbage-Collection-Maas-6-2018.pdf https://adept.eecs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/A...