On 7/17/14, 2:57 AM, currysoup wrote:
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).
Not at all costs! warp creates a little litter during e.g. command line
preprocessing and other inconsequential tasks. The core of it is careful
to not allocate frequently in inner loops.
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.
I agree there's a perception issue.
Andrei
