On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 14:05:02 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 13:29:18 UTC, John wrote:
If D came without GC, it would have replaced C++ a long time
ago!
That's overly optimistic I think, but I believe that the
adoption rate would have been far greater for a D without GC,
or perhaps with a more GC friendly design, as the GC comes up
first or close in every D discussion with prospective adopters.
However, it's way too late to change that now. IMO, the way
forward involves removing all or most hidden allocations from
the D libraries, making programming sans GC easier (@nogc
everywhere, a compiler switch, documentation for how to work
around the lack of GC, etc.) and a much better, precise GC as
part of the D release. Any spec changes necessary to support
precision should be in a fast path.
Yeah. Best avoid GC in the first place. If GC can stop the world
for ~250ms, wouldn't it be possible (just an innocent thought) to
tell the GC only to work, if it can guarantee to stay below a
certain threshold, and do the rest later (or in a parallel
thread)?
