Discussion on Go and D

[Manu]

On 9 April 2012 02:24, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/2012 3:57 PM, Manu wrote:
>
>> What do you base that statistic on? I'm not arguing that fact, just that I
>> haven't seen any evidence one way or the other. What causes Go to create
>> significantly more garbage than D? Are there benchmarks or test cases I
>> should
>> be aware of on the topic?
>>
>
> The first ycombinator reference is a person who didn't run out of memory
> using D. That implies far less pressure on the gc.
>
> My understanding of Go is that when it does structural conformance, it
> builds some of the necessary data at runtime on the gc heap.
>
> Anyhow, D has a lot of facilities for putting things on the stack rather
> than the heap, immutable data doesn't need to get copied, and slices allow
> lots of reuse of existing objects.
>

"optimized D was slightly faster than Go at almost anything and consumed up
to 70% less memory"
Interesting... I don't know enough about Go to reason that finding, I guess
I assumed it has most of the same possibilities available to D. (no
immutable data? no stack structs? no references/pointers/slices? crazy...)

The only D program I have significant experience with is VisualD, and it
hogs 1-2gb of ram for me under general usage, and eventually crashes, after
paging heavily and bringing my computer to a crawl. Not a good sign from
the first and only productive D app I've run yet ;)
This seems a lot like his experience with Go... but comparisons aside, D
still clearly isn't there yet when it comes to the GC either, and I'm
amazed Google thing Go is production ready if that guys findings are true!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120409/2f42c55e/attachment-0001.html>