On 2014-04-16 23:20:07 +0000, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> said:
On 4/16/2014 3:42 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
ARC may in fact be the most advantageous for a specific use case, but
that in no
way means that all use cases will see a performance improvement, and in all
likelihood, may see a decrease in performance.
Right on. Pervasive ARC is very costly, meaning that one will have to
define alongside it all kinds of schemes to mitigate those costs, all
of which are expensive for the programmer to get right.
It's not just ARC. As far as I know, most GC algorithms require some
action to be taken when changing the value of a pointer. If you're
seeing this as unnecessary bloat, then there's not much hope in a
better GC for D either.
But beyond that I wonder if @nogc won't entrench that stance even more.
Here's the question: is assigning to a pointer allowed in a @nogc
function? Of course it's allowed! Assigning to a pointer does not
involve the GC in its current implementation... but what if another GC
implementation to be used later needs something to be done every time a
pointer is modified, is this "something to be done" allowed in a @nogc
function?
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.ca
http://michelf.ca
