On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 20:40:50 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 19:04:33 +0000, rsw0x wrote:
GC in D is a pipedream, if it wasn't, why is it still so
horrible? Everyone keeps dancing around the fact that if the
GC wasn't horrible, nobody would work around it.
Rather, if everyone believed the GC was awesome in all
circumstances, nobody would work around it. It could be awesome
in all circumstances, but if people believe otherwise, they'll
try working around it. It could be generally awesome but bad
for a certain use case, in which case people who need to
support that use case will need to work around it.
In this case, I think it's a marketing issue, not a technical
one. D's being marketed as an alternative to C++, and existing
C++ users tend to believe that any garbage collector is too
slow to be usable.
In any case where you attempt to write code in D that is equal in
performance to C++, you must avoid the GC.
Either stop advertising D as an alternative to C++ or do
something about this, because as it stands it's dishonest to say
that D achieves the same performance as C++ when hiding the
asterisk that is "when you abandon 90% of the standard library
and much of the core language itself while jumping through hoops"
