News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Beautiful Binary Search in D by dataflow on Saturday February 18, 2023 @01:36PM (#34849635)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the reason many C++ folks reject it. It's kind of ironic that having too many useful features 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 im this direction.
Re:Beautiful Binary Search in D by funnymony on Saturday February 18, 2023 @04:32PM (#34851320)
Conveniences like closures depend on gc
Re:Beautiful Binary Search in D by dataflow on Saturday February 18, 2023 @04:34PM (#34851333)
C++ has had closures without a GC for over a decade now.
Re:Beautiful Binary Search in D by pjmlp on Saturday February 18, 2023 @05:58PM (#34851968)
As syntactic sugar for how C++ functors used to be implemented, and they also bring their own set of issues when interoperating with co-routines.
Re:Beautiful Binary Search in D by dataflow on Saturday February 18, 2023 @07:07PM (#34852555)
If 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.
Re:Beautiful Binary Search in D by Kukumber on Saturday February 18, 2023 @09:50PM (#34853763)