Caw, caw: My own fault, mostly, mis-remembering the thread.
I was not trying to upset you. I was attempting to make sure that I was crystal clear. [...] I am sorry that this made you feel talked-down to. That was not my intention...Well, happens all too easily when one tries (too hard?) to be "crystal clear"... How could that not sound, to the suspicious mind, like (you thought) you were talking to the village idiot? :-)
Mainly my own fault, though; got in a cranky mood from misreading you (and Jim). Sorry about that. That's about all the crow I'm going to eat, here -- gotta leave some room for my reply to Jim... But, lest it be forgotten, I am sorry about that, and will try to learn from this lesson.
Geez, when you decide to make yourself look silly, you don't go halfway, do you?Fuck, no, I don't believe in doing things by halves! :-)
Which leads to the common sense advice that before you write a rant, review the thread.Yup, thanks; that's the lesson I'll try to learn from this .
And answering one of your sarcastic comments, no, reference counting is not the same as true GC.Well, I wasn't trying to say the two variants were the same thing, either. What I was objecting to was your naming one variant "true" garbage collection while contrasting it to another...
As for whether true GC is better or worse than reference counting, people debate that forever. To forestall pointless debate here, [...]...as per the abvove, by calling one implementation "true" you are perforce implying that the other is "false", and once you start discussing in terms like that, what's the use of having any "debate" in the first place?
(Not that I'd probably join a debate about contrasting garbage collection implementations even if it were conducted in less prejudicial terms; I don't hold with the whole idea.)
But like it or not, true GC is an idea that is working its way into more and more environments as time goes on.Yeah, but that's the infamous Fly Diet Argument.