On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 15:43:46 UTC, ponce wrote:
Yet with D the situation is different and I feel that criticism
is way overblown:
- first of all, few people will have problems with GC in D at
all
- then minimizing allocations can usually solve most of the
problems
- if it's still a problem, the GC can be completely disabled,
relevant language features avoided, and there will be no GC
pause
- this work of avoiding allocations would happen anyway in a
C++ codebase
- I happen to have a job with some hardcore optimized C++
codebase and couldn't care less that a GC would run provided
there is a way to minimize GC usage (and there is)
Whatever rational rebutal we have it's never heard.
The long answer is that it's not a real problem. But it seems
people want a short answer. It's also an annoying fight to have
since so much of it is based on zero data.
Is there a plan to have a standard counter-attack to that kind
of overblown problems?
It could be just a solid blog post or a @nogc feature.
i have never bothered about D GC(nor C# or others
implementations), maybe that's just because i don't have that
high memory/performance constraints, but still i definitely would
start with GC and then work for minimize allocations... just
because it allows focus on code more than memory management, and
thus should give much better productivity and quality.
