On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 at 14:00:52 UTC, Brandon Ragland
wrote:
Seriously, the fact that the GC has gone un-noticied for so
long is a HUGE turn off for just about ANY would be C like
It has not gone un-noticed, that's how @nogc came about. So
people are aware that it is not suitable for interactive use.
The key focus seems to be to rewrite Phobos so that you don't
need a GC there at all. That approach I know nothing about...
Unfortunately, how to do C++-style memory management is still not
obvious to me either. And I am also not happy with the
library-allocator approach since that will make it more difficult
for the compiler to optimize memory allocations. I think memory
handling should be part of the language, not a runtime or library
issue.
So I very much hope for a language spec that takes a more modern
approach to address memory management so that we can get
something that is better than C++ for interactive applications.
D could SERIOUSLY use a rewrite or three of the garbage
collector.
You actually have to change the language semantics if you want a
faster garbage collector. You can only scan so many cache-lines
and unfortunately scanning is limited by total memory that can
contain pointers and not the size of the GC heap itself... So
either you need to group pointers on cache-lines and use advanced
static analysis, limit GC memory access or take the toll of a
concurrent GC (which would set back progress a couple of years).
