d future or plans for d3

[Vladimir Panteleev]

On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 23:13:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 12/18/11 4:53 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.
>
> I think we can do a lot toward improving the footprint and 
> performance of a precise GC while benefitting of its innate 
> advantages.

Still, a more conservative GC will always outperform a more 
precise one in scanning speed. Without knowing the price, it 
would be unwise to jump into it without even considering the 
possibility of leaving a choice.

I am not against the idea, but I believe that more research is 
needed before rash decisions are taken. If the performance 
penalty turns out to be insignificant, then choice would be 
pointless. And if there will be a considerable performance gap, 
the "burden" of choice (compiler switch/boolean runtime setting + 
maintenance costs) could be worth it.