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:
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.
Have there been studies quantifying the performance of D's GC
relative to other GC implementations? My anecdotal experience is
that D's GC can have undesirable latency behavior (long pauses),
but throughput appears good. Of course, quantified metrics would
be far preferable to anecdotal observations.
--Jon