On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 15:12:08 UTC, Random D user wrote:
Actually, Manual Memory Management is slow and D's GC is slower.
Well, no, deterministic memory management isn't slow. One specific implementation with a high level of naiveté might be slow.
C is not a very clever language, it was designed to be minimal and with minimal compiler requirements and with most features pushed onto libraries, including memory management. C++ is just meta-level dressing over C…
Because, if malloc/free is slow (free is often slower), you want to avoid them as much as possible.
A naive generic library implementation that is used randomly will not be fast, but a more dedicated implementation for the program at hand could be very performant.
You do this by reusing your memory/buffers.
Yes, in C/C++ you either have to resort to creating your own allocator in your program or you could used dedicated allocators. Or you just make them static global.
Anyway, D doesn't improve on C/C++ when it comes to allocators. And it's garbage collector is pretty much stuck in the standard GC implementation from 1960s/1970s in terms of performance and features.
Just because C/C++ is primitive doesn't mean that D is doing well, but at this point there is not much hope of D becoming a significant improvement on C++… So maybe it is better for D to stay where it is as there is basically very little support among the designers from improving the language semantics. In the C++ environment there is at least some movement, so maybe it will become a decent language in 2050, although they are stuck with the primitive C-foundation…
