3 ms·
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the reason many C++ folks reject it. It's kind of ironic that having the "wrong" useful feature can hurt you, but that seems to be wh
by dataflow 4y ago
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the reason many C++ folks reject it. It's kind of ironic that having the "wrong" useful feature can hurt you, but that seems to be what's happening here. I feel like they might actually have a shot at solving it by literally dropping GC support, but it's hard to say at this point. I don't know if the standard library still has anything that needs a GC, but making sure that's not the case might be a good first step if they're ever interested in going in this direction.
- funnymony 4y agoConveniences like closures depend on gc
- dataflow 4y agoC++ has had closures without a GC for over a decade now.
- pjmlp 4y agoAs syntactic sugar for how C++ functors used to be implemented, and they also bring their own set of issues when interoperating with co-routines.
- dataflow 4y agoIf anything that's a statement about coroutines, not closures. And even then, not every coroutine has problems. I don't see a logical implication from that to a GC requirement.
- Kukumber 4y agoThat's not true https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#function-pointers-delegates https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#function-pointers-deleg...