On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 12:40:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 11:58:20 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
I've never said the GC is compatible with real-time, it isn't. I said, we can avoid it in a small part of an application and be real-time. So D can do real-time (audio).

Yes, but why say it if you don't use it after init?

Well, this fit some style of applications like video encoders too.
With games I did have more problems with GC, unless pooling.
Problems that C++ wouldn't have with malloc.

It's not new that D, like C++, can work like a more powerful version of C. Although I had to create a lot of fuzz to even get to this point where we now have at least the @nogc tag. A couple of years ago neither Walter or Andrei showed any sign of understanding that being GC reliant was an issue for a system level programming language. That attitude is pretty common for languages that ship with a GC, and is the reason for why people don't want audio software using it (or is boasting it).

There is a perception problem, and it's reason enough not to talk about this GC thing anymore. Because tt hasn't been a problem, was easily avoided, and now is just negative PR for nothing.

Reply via email to