On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:26:38 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:20:36 UTC, Russel Winder via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It appears still to be a general meme that performance
required no GC
and GC mean poor performance. The debate has been restarted on
the Go
mailing list under the banner "go without garbage collector".
The
response to will Go remove the garbage collector was somewhat
unequivocal: nope.
That's good news in a way. If a big company accepts GC and the
Go crowd go with it (pardon the pun), then it will find more
acceptance (as Paulo pointed out in a different thread).
It's not about "acceptance", it's about the reality that a GC is
not a universal solution to memory management.
Just from watching a few of the DConf 2014 talks, if you want
performance you avoid the GC at all costs (even if that means
allocating into huge predefined buffers). Once you're going to
these lengths to avoid garbage collection it begs the question,
why are you even using this language? Within this community the
question is rhetorical but to outsiders I feel it's a major
concern.
