On 24 December 2014 at 04:49, Vic via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, 20 December 2014 at 22:11:35 UTC, Xinok wrote: >> >> I'm going to make a stark proposal to the you all, the community and all D >> users as whole. I wish for us to set an ultimate goal to be made top >> priority and complete by the end of next year. My wish is to resolve the >> issue of memory management for D by the end of 2015. This is a significant >> issue that has affected most of us at one point or another. I think this >> gives D a bad rap more than anything else and is a point of contention for >> many, especially those with a background in C/C++. >> >> I think the problem of memory management can be reduced to two points: >> (1) The garbage collector for D is sub-par. >> (2) There are too many implicit allocations in Phobos. >> >> I think three goals need to be met for the problem of memory management to >> be satisfied: >> (1) We need a precise garbage collector. The fact that a garbage-collected >> language experiences memory leaks truly reflects poorly on on D. >> (2) Furthermore, we need to improve the performance of the garbage >> collector. There are some things the developer can do to reduce the time and >> frequency collection cycles, but the current situation is far from optimal. >> (3) We need a viable alternative to the garbage collection. Whether that >> be allocators, ref counting, or full-fledged manual memory management, there >> is great demand for the ability to use D without the GC with little hassle. >> >> I sincerely believe that this is the greatest issue facing D today and >> something that should have been resolved a long time ago. The fact that >> relatively simple programs can crash with out-of-memory errors (especially >> 32-bit executables) and high-performance code experiences frequent or >> lengthy collection cycles means we have a bad situation on our hands. >> >> Things like @nogc are a start but much more needs to be done. I'm not >> hoping for an optimal solution, nor am I expecting a state-of-the-art >> garbage collector. I think we should simply aim for "good enough". Then once >> we have a better memory management scheme, we can begin incorporating these >> changes into Phobos. >> >> What do you all think? Can we make improving memory management the top >> priority for 2015 with the goal of developing an adequate solution by the >> end of next year? > > > +1. Seems like a reasonable compromise. > > (but to be a negative Nancy: to be realistically achieved: it must be the > only goal and w/ a laser focus. D community still has to demonstrate > discipline, here is an inspiration: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iYWzMvlj2RQ > ). > > Still cheers and hope, Vic
You should see me talk about changes that neglect/break cross-platform compatibility. (ie: anything non-x86 :o)
