On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 16:56:56 UTC, Vic wrote:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 13:29:18 UTC, John wrote:
<snip>
If D came without GC, it would have replaced C++ a long time
ago!
Agree +1000.
If GC is so good, why not make it an option, have a base lib
w/o GC.
If I want GC, I got me JRE. It seems that some in D want to
write a better JRE, and that just won't happen ever.
Cheers,
Vic
I can't think of anyone posting here, to be honest, who wants to
write a better JRE. The JRE is a virtual machine, and java
compiles to bytecode that is run on the JVM. On the contrary, and
in accordance with the core principle that D is a systems
programming language, D compiles to native and (hopefully) highly
optimised native machine code. There does exist something of a
'culture clash' where, by the very nature of GCs, there can be
not-insignificant pauses in the running of the program that would
be inimicable to real-time software such as high res complex
games, operating systems, drivers etc.
The response to this in the forums is either to improve the GC so
that it doesn't ever pause for more than a certain amount of time
(e.g. concurrent GCs, remove the global lock so other threads can
continue to run), or to offer alternative memory management
approaches such as ARC, which can also have pauses, but at other
inflections as the program runs.
Personally I'm a bit disappointed that the good work that has
been done on GCs so far doesn't seem to be being picked up and
run with, and nor do I see any reasons given as to why that is
the case. Adnrei was threatening to start another GC an one point
but unfortunately I haven't seen any more of that and we all know
how short of time every one seems to be these days.
Also on a personal note, I see some slightly snarky comments
about D targeting C# and Java. Well from my perspective I'm
extremely happy with the fact that D is a better C# and a better
Java. I just wish it had Qt (I must finish my bindings for Qt)
and/or ran on Android! The GC issues are irrelevant for me.
