On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 07:57:55PM +0000, deadalnix via Digitalmars-d wrote: [...] > Actually, I think we can do better than Java, because we have > type qualifiers and less indirection. That isn't unseen: OCaml's > GC is more performant than Java's. We certainly do not have the > resources java has, but we have a language that is way more GC > friendly.
Are you sure about that? Having unions, pointer arithmetic, and passing things to/from C/C++ constrains possible GC implementations more than in Java, where you don't have to worry about such things. Although we'd like to default to @safe, we aren't quite there yet, and besides, you don't want to have a GC that only works in @safe code when obviously there's a lot of D code out there that is un-@safe. T -- Real men don't take backups. They put their source on a public FTP-server and let the world mirror it. -- Linus Torvalds