Simen Kjaeraas пишет: > Weed <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Simen Kjaeraas пишет: >>> Weed <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> I think the point you're trying to make is that a GC is more memory >>>>> intensive. >>>> >>>> + Sometimes allocation and freeing of memory in an arbitrary >>>> unpredictable time unacceptable. (in game development or realtime >>>> software, for example. One hundred million times discussed about it >>>> there, I guess) >>> >>> Then use the stub GC or disable the GC, then re-enable it when >>> you have the time to run a sweep (yes, you can). >>> >> >> Then a memory overrun > > If so, you have allocated a lot of things you shouldn't have, or otherwise > would have the same problem using manual allocation. No, as far as I know that some pieces of language does not imply a manual release memory. (See below)
>>>> A need language that does not contain a GC (or contains optional). Many >>>> C++ programmers do not affect the D only because of this. >>> >>> While GC in D is not optional, it can be stubbed out or disabled, >> >> Then some part of the language will stop working (dynamic arrays, and >> possibly delegates) > > Yes. So don't use those parts, It is not impossible without blocking at the compiler level (by CLI option) in the real world. > or disable the GC and enable it > when you have the time. Again, the memory will be overrun)
