On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 02:06:02 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Rob T wrote:
I am not actually against the use of the GC, I was only
wondering if it could
be fully removed. I too did not at first agree with the GC
concept, thinking
the same things you mention. I still have to consider
performance issues
caused by the GC, but the advantage is that I can do things
that before I
would not even bother attempting because the cost was too
high. The way I
program has changed for the better, there's no doubt about it.
There's some issues that can rightfully be termed "caused by
the GC", but
most of the performance issues are probably better labled
"agregious use
of short lived allocations", which cost performance regardless
of how
memory is managed. The key difference being that in manual
management the
impact is spread out and in periodic garbage collection it's
batched up.
My primary point being, blaming the GC when it's the
application style
that generates enough garbage to result in wanting to blame the
GC for the
performance cost is misplaced blame.
My 2 cents,
Brad
You'll also find out that D's GC is kind of slow, but this is an
implementation issue more than a conceptual problem with he GC.
