Essentially, they fake a GC via never-freed arenas for long-living objects. It's interesting that Rust can do that (hopefully soundly)!
Another advantage human ports have is the opportunity to reconsider earlier architectural decisions and change them, instead of just enshrining them in the new language.
Only practical option is to do low level rewrite (otpion 1) and then rewrite module by module into better approaches.
>Create with P::new(value). p.get() returns &'static T. [...] unless an explicit recycling site proves them dead
It's unsound, the LLM/human is doing the proving. They've hidden unsafe in an abstraction without removing the unsafeness. Using the arena allocator's lifetime would have been safe and easy (bumpalo recommends this AFAIK).
I'm guessing a sycophantic LLM either found or praised this load-bearing seam.
Never deallocating would have been sound (missile memory management: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20180228-00/?p=98... ).
Zing!
Calling this a breakthrough in memory management is an understatement. Call up the Turing Award committee. We just discovered a solution to the halting problem! Turns out that for certain applications the answer is unequivocally "yes"
A long time ago I read an article about someone speeding up a C++ compiler that is itself written in C++ (was it g++? maybe clang?). They simply patched out delete so it did nothing. The compiler used marginally more memory but ran much faster, since releasing all the small objects one by one is just useless work at the end of the compilation.
A GCed language has a similar behavior and could therefore be fast in that case. It just builds up all the objects and then when the program exists it doesn't have to GC them all, it just throws away the whole process memory. So I can imagine one could "optimize" a compiler written in a GCed language by deactivating the GC.