Hacker News Reader

My issue with this approach is that it seems inherently racy in multithreaded programs. Nim gets around that issue by having a per-thread GC and segfaulting if you send pointers to other threads (unless you use the Boehm GC, last I checked)—your only backup seems to be manual memory management—but I don't see that as a scalable approach for large-scale software with dozens or hundreds of threads. (Not to mention that not having a thread-safe GC neglects a major benefit of a GC for lock-free data structures; having to use hazard pointers if you're a GC'd language seems like a shame.)

> And no, the standard library does not rely on GC like in D.

Does this mean that all of the standard library is written using manual memory management? Wouldn't this slow down its development and expose it to all the same reliability and security problems C has?

> And no, the standard library does not rely on GC like in D.

This isn't correct, it relies heavily on GC.