d future or plans for d3

[Timon Gehr]

On 12/18/2011 11:53 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 20:32:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> That is an interesting opportunity. At any rate, I am 100% convinced
>> precise GC is the only way to go, and I think I've convinced Walter to
>> a good extent as well.
>
> Sacrificing something (performance, executable size) for something else
> is not an unilateral improvement.

It is an unilateral improvement if both options are kept open. I don't 
see a reason to cease support for the current GC model.

Furthermore, a generational GC performs much better than a simple 
mark-sweep GC.