Garbage collection is contrarian
trynova.dev
Garbage collection is contrarian
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#2Compare also 'A Unified Theory of Garbage Collection' https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~weimerw/2008-415/reading/bacon-g...
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#3Just intuitively, this seems to be using a feature designed to guarantee safety in a way that doesn’t guarantee safety, which raises questions about what the point is.
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#4Just use unsafe then you have all of the good points of rust, like being able to say you wrote it in rust with none of the downsides, like having to write safe code in rust, or that code being slow.
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#5This reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc (Argument Clinic)
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#6Just intuitively, this seems to be using a feature designed to guarantee safety in a way that doesn’t guarantee safety, which raises questions about what the point is.
Author here: to get the compiler to help me as the programmer to produce correct code (not accidentally using handles after GC) without being massively manual, but (at least currently) accepting that it is not a guarantee and thus runtime checks (bounds checks in my case) are needed to retain memory safety.
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#7I clicked on this hoping is was about physical garbage collection
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#8I clicked on this hoping is was about physical garbage collection
I aim to displease!
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#9I'm hoping for a future in which humankind looks back with embarrassment at this silly period in its history in which people used to think a leaky and bad abstractions like garbage collection was ever a good approach to deal with resource life-times.
Re: Garbage collection is contrarian
#10I clicked on this hoping is was about physical garbage collection
[deleted]