OSNews thread here degenerates into GC vs not

[Lutger]

Steve Horne wrote:
> I'm just a bit surprised and curious, is all. If anyone asked me if D
> was good for games, I'd have thought first about COM support (for
> DirectX) and any possible issues in calling OpenGL, and then I'd have
> thought about memory and resource management, and then I'd have
> expressed some slight concern that the DMD optimiser is probably less
> sophisticated than those in some other compilers, but I'd figure that
> the cost from this is probably very small - the important
> optimisations are usually design-level optimisations (algorithms and
> data structures).

I haven't done any work in 3d games, but what I hear from every single 
programmer that has is that they will gladly trade some performance for 
productivity.

I was so shocked when I browsed the C++ CIV4 SDK, I always thought these 
professional programmers had a tight and clear codebase for such large 
applications, well they don't.
But they are on a tight schedule too and it must be a complex ordeal. I 
image doing something like this in D saves so much time and complexity, 
that alone might enable developers to implement higher performance 
applications. For the most annoying problems with performance in the 
games I play are due to 'bugs' or design-level bottlenecks it seems, and 
they are usually patched some months after the release - if you're lucky.