Due to potential new direction of D, I’m looking for some escape route just in case. I’m primarily a gamedev, so no functional programming languages like Rust or Haskell. Also one of the features I dislike the most in C/C++ is the super slow and super obsolete precompiler with its header files, so no zig, I don’t want to open two files for editing the same class/struct. Memory safety is nice to have, but not a requirement, at worst case scenario I’ll just create struct SafeArray<Type>. Also I need optional OOP features instead of reinventing OOP with all kinds of hacks many do when I would need it.
Yes I know about OpenD, and could be a candidate for such things, just looking into alternatives.
Yeah, I don’t think that can happen without splitting the whole ecosystem in half. Garbage collection requires a runtime, and tons of the code semantics are also just different between the two, particularly with asynchronous code.
I also imagine that many people wouldn’t just leave their particular program in the GC version, but never even bother to learn the ownership/borrowing semantics, even though those largely stop being painful after a few months.
But yeah, I actually don’t think it’s too bad to have individual parts of the ecosystem using their own memory management strategies.
The two examples that I can think of are ECS for gamedev and signals/reactivity for UI frameworks. Which is what is used in C++ or JavaScript, Kotlin, too. You’d probably still want to use these strategies, even if you’ve got garbage collection available…
I’ve re-thought about the problem and I think for prototyping I should just Box::leak() and work with raw pointers.
This approach also doesn’t allow you to not learn the borrow checker, since leaking everything is not a good memory management strategy, but might be fine for rapidly iterating on a design.
EDIT: maybe use a leak!() Macro that does Box::leak(Box::new()) in debug mode but panics on release (as long as you execute once in release it should be fine).
I tried something like that once. Basically, I was trying to create an API with which sysadmins could script deployments. That involves lots of strings, so I was hoping I could avoid the
Stringvs.&strsplit by making everything&'static str.And yeah, the problem is that this only really works within one function. If you need to pass a parameter into a function, that function either accepts a
&'staticreference which makes it impossible to call this function with an owned type or non-static reference, or you make it accept any reference, but then everything below that function has normal borrowing semantics again.I guess, with the former you could
Box::leak()to pass an owned type or non-static reference, with the downside of all your APIs being weird.Or maybe your prototyping just happens at the top and you’re fine with making individual functions accept non-static references. I guess, you’ll still have to try it.
Since you’re already at the bargaining stage of
griefprogramming, maybe you’re aware, butRcandArcare the closest you can get to a GC-like feel. These do reference counting, so unlike GC, they can’t easily deal with cyclic references, but aside from that, same thing.Unfortunately, they do still have the same problem with passing them as parameters…
The good thing about Box::leak() is that it returns a raw *mut pointer. So you need unsafe{} to dereference it. Might as well:
let my_ref = &mut unsafe{*ptr};while you are at it, so you have a perfectly normal rust reference, so the function signatures don’t need any change.The problem with Rc is that it would also require a RefCell most of the time. So the whole thing would be filled with Rc<RefCell<T>>. With the required .borrow_mut(). It would both do a pain to do and undo.
And of course I want to undo it, because RC is a shitty GC.