On Saturday, 7 October 2017 at 01:00:41 UTC, Jon Degenhardt wrote:
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
Have you tried running the GC instrumentation on your tsv
utilities? That might make for a very interesting blog post.
