On Tuesday, 2 January 2018 at 00:34:57 UTC, Nerve wrote:
I would simply add that the strongest vocalizations come from
those with objections. The silent majority that is perfectly
okay with GC and gets huge development complexity reductions
thanks to it rarely spare the energy to argue againts the
constant GC complaints.
Well, consider the silent 'minority' too, who still think that
increasing performance, and reducing demands on resources, still
matter, a lot, and that we shouldn't just surrender this just to
make programmers more 'productive' (i.e so they can ship slower
GC code, more quickly).
Or are you saying there is no overhead associated with GC?
Or if there is, are you saying it never matters..ever?
Or are you saying GC does not impose extra demand on resources?
Or if it does, are you saying it never matters..ever?
What it really comes down to though, is language designers
ensuring that any language that defines itself as a 'modern
systems programming language', gives control 'to the programmer',
and not the other way around.
We've had over a decade of this crazy unconstrained growth in
bloat (slower code, and more of it), in the world of software
developement. So, perhaps we should start paying more attention
to the vocal minority.
