3 ms·
This is irrelevant (and false). GC is orthogonal to memory safety. (And all of those things have been successfully been done in GC'd languages.)
by zurn 12y ago
This is irrelevant (and false).
GC is orthogonal to memory safety.
(And all of those things have been successfully been done in GC'd languages.)
- jeffdavis 12y agoNot sure what I said was false? I agree that GC and memory safety are orthogonal -- see rust. But there aren't a lot of options if you want safe and non-GC, which was my point. And GC is just not an option sometimes. GC has been around forever but it just hasn't proven itself in a lot of domains. I don't think it's for lack of trying, I think it's because sometimes you want to manage the memory.