== Quote from Sean Kelly ([email protected])'s article > dsimcha Wrote: > > == Quote from Rounin ([email protected])'s article > > > Complicating the code by avoiding associative arrays isn't really an > > > option, > > > though, as the whole point of writing the program was comparing D to > > > Python in > > > terms of simplicity. > > > > How about using a library defined associative array? As I've mentioned > > several > > times here before, D's current builtin associative array implementation > > interacts > > horribly with the GC. This is true both in terms of speed and memory usage. > > Neither D's GC nor its AA implementation is that bad per se, but the AA > > implementation seems to expose all the weaknesses in the GC, such that the > > result > > when using large AAs is laughably bad. I think eventually we need to > > completely > > redesign and rewrite it, or at least put a sealed implementation in > > std.container > > that's more geared towards huge AAs. > The precise scanning patch would probably help tremendously here.
Yes, it would but even so, I don't think that a good AA implementation for a GC like D's should require an allocation on **every single insert**. This makes AAs basically unusable in parallel code.
