On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:09:22 +0000 Kapps via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 22 December 2014 at 22:02:46 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > > > oh, how much usefullness there would be if D core suspended all > > other > > activities and maked GC on par with "industrial strength" GCs! > > > > i'm trying to tell you that i LOVE GC. and i can't share the > > (growing?) > > attitute that GC is a poor stepson. what we really need is a > > better GC, > > not "no GC". > > The GC is good for 90% of programs. It's not good for some > programs (games in particular are a common use case). Though even > in games it's fine in some situations, such as during loading. D > needs to support these cases. there is nothing really hard to support that: just don't allocate in main game loop. ;-) on the other side good concurrent GC can work alongside with game logic. game engine can fine-tune it if necessary. also, nobody says that game engine can't use other allocators. as game engines tend to skip standard libraries anyway, i can't see much sense in making Phobos "good for game engines".
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature