> I remember you always saying people who want to limit GC usage just don't get > it and it'll be fast anyway so why bother. Of course destructors have > advantages of their own (like deterministic freeing you mentioned) but if you > say Nim's GC is so blazingly fast (I don't doubt it, I just no real > experience with GCs) --- why bother about performance? Couldn't destructors > just be used where performance doesn't matter as much and you want them for > other reasons?
We could do that but I eventually want to have a simpler, more consistent language that does not provide every feature under the sun. If I can get a unified solution for resource management that costs 5-10% performance (before I optimized it to use custom allocators etc.) I'm willing to pay the price. Others may not.
