On Monday, 14 September 2015 at 00:53:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
So, while the fact that D's GC is less than stellar is certainly a problem, and we would definitely like to improve that, the idioms that D code typically uses seriously reduce the number of performance problems that we get.

What D needs is some way for a static analyzer to be certain that a pointer does not point to a specific GC heap. And that means language changes... one way or the other.

Without language changes it becomes very difficult to reduce the amount of memory scanned without sacrificing memory safety.

And I don't think a concurrent GC is realistic given the complexity and performance penalties. The same people who complain about GC would not accept performance hits on pointer-writes. That would essentially make D and Go too similar IMO.

              • Re:... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... ponce via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... ponce via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Prudence via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Ola Fosheim Grostad via Digitalmars-d-learn
              • Re:... Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-learn
          • Re: shared a... Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-learn
  • Re: shared array? Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-learn

Reply via email to