On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 16:56 +0000, Wyatt via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 6 June 2016 at 14:27:52 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer > wrote: > > I agree. It's telling that nearly all real-world examples we've > > seen (sociomantic, remedy games, etc.) use D without GC or with > > specialized handling of GC. > > I doubt either of the two you named would change, but I wonder > how different the tenor of conversation would be in general if > D's GC wasn't a ponderous relic?
So instead of debating this endlessly, I think this is about the tenth time this has come up in the last two years, why doesn't a group of people who know about GC algorithms get together and write a new one? Java has had a large number of GCs over the years: new knowledge, new algorithms, new implementation lead to better performance. Go has had at least three GCs as new knowledge, new algorithms, new implementation lead to better performance. D has had lots of discussion on email lists but no-one has followed this up with actually doing something that resulted in a change. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
