On 9 April 2012 02:24, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:57 PM, Manu wrote: > >> What do you base that statistic on? I'm not arguing that fact, just that I >> haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. What causes Go to create >> significantly more garbage than D? Are there benchmarks or test cases I >> should >> be aware of on the topic? >> > > The first ycombinator reference is a person who didn't run out of memory > using D. That implies far less pressure on the gc. > > My understanding of Go is that when it does structural conformance, it > builds some of the necessary data at runtime on the gc heap. > > Anyhow, D has a lot of facilities for putting things on the stack rather > than the heap, immutable data doesn't need to get copied, and slices allow > lots of reuse of existing objects. > "optimized D was slightly faster than Go at almost anything and consumed up to 70% less memory" Interesting... I don't know enough about Go to reason that finding, I guess I assumed it has most of the same possibilities available to D. (no immutable data? no stack structs? no references/pointers/slices? crazy...) The only D program I have significant experience with is VisualD, and it hogs 1-2gb of ram for me under general usage, and eventually crashes, after paging heavily and bringing my computer to a crawl. Not a good sign from the first and only productive D app I've run yet ;) This seems a lot like his experience with Go... but comparisons aside, D still clearly isn't there yet when it comes to the GC either, and I'm amazed Google thing Go is production ready if that guys findings are true!
