On 10/3/2012 2:26 PM, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
But can the D GC ever be made:
1. precise
2. able to scale to large-ish data set(2gig+)
3. No long stalls(anything over a couple millisecond(<3))
There is nothing in the language that prevents this, it's a matter of
doing the implementation effort. Recently, the compiler started using a
library-defined hook for doing precise GC. That hook currently does
nothing, but it enables development of a better GC without needing
compiler modifications.
Q. Curious, would it be compacting?
If not then I'm stuck not using it much--
Compacting requires making objects movable, and yes, D's semantics allow
for movable objects. Interestingly, some of the latest ideas in GC seem
to be moving away from compacting.
* Oh and on a totally unrelated note, D needs Multiple return values.
Lua has it, it's awesome. D doesn't want to be left out does it?
You can do that now with Tuples.
* OpCmp returning an int is fugly I r sad
How else would you return a 3 state value?
* why is haskell so much shorter syntax, can D get that nice syntax
plssssssssss
Haskell's syntax is quite a bit shorter, but I find it difficult to
mentally read, though I'm sure with practice I could get used to it.
D's syntax is deliberately designed to be a { } language, and to be
comfortable for people who are used to { } languages.
