On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 02:09:57 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, February 08, 2018 23:57:45 Rubn via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 18:06:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
> I.e. it isn't an issue of us D guys being dumb about the GC.
So you could say it's a design flaw of D, attempting to use a
GC where it isn't suited?
You could say that, but many of us would not agree. Just
because certain classes of GCs cannot be used with D does not
mean that the fact that D has a GC built-in is not beneficial
and ultimately a good design decision. Plenty of folks have
been able to write very efficient code that uses D's GC.
Obviously, there are use cases where it's better to avoid the
GC, but for your average D program, the GC has been a fantastic
asset.
- Jonathan M Davis
I didn't say that a GC isn't beneficial, the problem is if you
are going to be using the GC there are plenty of other languages
that implement it better. The language is designed around the GC.
Anytime I try and use an associative array, my program crashes
because of the GC. The workaround I need to do is just make every
associative array static. Maybe if phobos could be built into a
shared library it wouldn't be as big of a problem. But that's not
the case, before someone goes around crying that Phobos CAN be
built into a shared library, remember platform matters!
You can write efficient code with Java, and that has an entire VM
running between the cpu and the language. Efficiency isn't the
issue. Writing code that is both GC and non-GC code is extremely
difficult to do correctly. That it just isn't worth it at the end
of the day, it complicates everything, and that is the design
flaw. Having to use a complicated inefficient GC is just a side
effect of the greater issue.
