https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20219
--- Comment #3 from Vladimir Panteleev <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Rainer Schuetze from comment #2) > Not sure what to do about the additional threads staying around forever, > maybe they could terminate after some time of not running, but that adds > considerable overhead when restarting them. How costly is this overhead? I think your suggestion is a good idea, and we should balance the time the threads stay idle with the overhead of starting them. E.g.: let them shut down if they have been idle for more than 100x-1000x the time that would be needed to start them again. (In reply to Rainer Schuetze from comment #2) > When making it opt-in, only few programs would > actually benefit from that, because people won't bother to change the > defaults. Not sure what you're trying to say, as this argument applies to both opt-in and opt-out, with each being a compromise. What I'm worried about of, if this were to become normalized, reactions like "Why does this tiny program I just installed need so many threads? Oh right, it's written in D, that language with that bloated runtime and garbage collector which needs a dozen threads to work properly. What a mess, why hasn't someone rewritten it in Rust yet!". --
