On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 18:42:02 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 06:09:58PM +0000, Ali via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Friday, 6 October 2017 at 17:27:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 05:14:51PM +0000, Rion via
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-review-of-D-programming-language
> >
> > It seems that D still has the GC being mentioned up to
> > today.
> >
> > Maybe its better to move the standard library slower to a
> > non gc version in the future...
>
> Why is GC a problem?
>
>
> T
The reputation is D's GC is slow, and Manual Memory Management
is fast
The first point is valid (when are we going to get a better GC?
:-/), but the second is questionable. But there's not much you
can say to GC-phobic C/C++ aficiandos to convince them
otherwise. (I used to be one of them.)
T
For me the important point is not directly about performance, but
about determinism.
I know when the GC is called, and i can set when to collect, but
I have no idea what they will do, how much memory they will free
nor the time they will spent doing it. And this lack of control
is the true problem.
