Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de enero a las 17:18 me escribiste: > >>I would have to agree and this is one of my causes for hesisation in > >>adopting D. The code I write requires the highest performance > >>possible. I am concerned that when I port it over to D, I will have > >>to avoid using a lot of D features that use the GC (built-in arrays, > >>closures, standard library features, etc.) in order to get the best > >>possible performance. D does not adhere to the C++ zero-overhead > >>principle, and I see this as a risk. So if/when I end up porting my > >>code to D I may evolve my own dialect of D that uses only the subset > >>of features that tend to provide the best performance. > > > >One thing that can help a lot here is an option for the compiler to avoid > >compiling stuff that implicitly call the GC (LDC has an option to avoid > >runtime calls altogether, -noruntime, but maybe that's too extreme). That > >just helps to avoiding hidden GC usage, you still have to use your own > >dialect and you probably have to avoid Phobos too. > > I'd love -nogc. Then we can think of designing parts of Phobos to > work under that regime.
It's nice to know there is some interest in this. Maybe some day we can have an EmbeddeD ;) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Y Gloria Carrá, Gloria Estephan, Gloria Gaynor y Gloria Trevi. -- Peperino Pómoro