4 ms·
>Might be interpreted as older languages with GC did not had value types, which is bluntly false, going back to 1970's. Ok, but you included Common Lisp in you
by foldr 3y ago
>Might be interpreted as older languages with GC did not had value types, which is bluntly false, going back to 1970's.
Ok, but you included Common Lisp in your list, which doesn't really have value types. (E.g. you cannot make an unboxed array of structs.)
- pjmlp 3y agoNo, but you can have an array of primitive values, instead of an array of pointers.
- foldr 3y agoYou can do that in Java too!
- pjmlp 3y agoTake your brownies, I guess, that wasn't my point. As if me mis-remembering Common Lisp capabilities, invalidates the rest regarding "modern" GC languages. Here is an array of structs in Oberon, 1987, TYPE Point = RECORD x, y : INTEGER END; Triagle = RECORD v1, v2, v3: Point END; Data = ARRAY 100 OF Triagle; (* static sized *) DynData = ARRAY OF Triagle; (* dynamically sized *) VAR dynData : DynData; (* Allocated via NEW(dynData, elems)*)
- foldr 3y agoNo, it doesn't invalidate the rest of your comment. It just made it harder to figure out what point you were making in your original post (i.e. what the this referred to). There's a little bit of irony here in how you react to people picking at details in your own posts, when your original post is precisely the same kind of pedantry!