On 17 April 2014 10:06, Michel Fortin via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> 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. > Indeed. But beyond that I wonder if @nogc won't entrench that stance even more. This is *precisely* my concern. I'm really worried about this.
