On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:33:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > Dan Sugalski writes: > > Also, with all this stuff, people are going to find timely destruction > > is less useful than they might want, what with threads and > > continuations, which'll screw *everything* up, as they are wont to do. > > I know I've been making heavy use of continuations myself, and this is > > for a compiler for a language that doesn't even have subroutines in > > it. Continuations screw everything up, which is always fun, for > > unusual values of 'fun'. > > When I programmed in C++ with proper use of the STL and other such > abstractions, almost the only time I needed destructors were for > block-exit actions. Perl 6 has block-exit hooks, so you don't need to > use destructors to fudge those anymore. And there's a lot less explicit > memory management in languages with GC (that's the point), so > destructors become even less useful. > > I agree with Dan completely here. People make such a big fuss over > timely destruction when they don't realize that they don't really need > it. (But they want it). I think, more importantly, they don't > understand what they're getting in return for giving it up.
Could you point out what i get? I use TD is to handle resources: filehandles, database handles, gui windows and all that. Refcounting does this with a little overhead, but in a fast and deterministic O(1) way. And how do you want to implement glib objects with parrot? They are refcounted. robin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robin Redeker
