On Thursday, 17 April 2014 at 04:19:00 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 17 April 2014 09:20, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
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.
GC is _very_ costly. From my experience comparing iOS and
Android, it's
clear that GC is vastly more costly and troublesome than ARC.
What measure
do you use to make that assertion?
You're also making a hidden assertion that the D GC will never
improve,
since most GC implementations require some sort of work similar
to ref
fiddling anyway...
Except Dalvik's GC sucks, because it is hardly improved since
Android 2.3 and very simple when compared to any other commercial
JVM for embedded scenarios, for example Jamaica JVM
https://www.aicas.com/cms/.
Even Windows Phone .NET GC is better and additionally .NET is
compiled to native code on the store.
There is a reason why Dalvik is being replaced by ART.
--
Paulo
