John Carmack applauds D's pure attribute
newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Sat Feb 25 14:55:36 PST 2012
On 2/25/2012 2:08 PM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> Most standard compiler malloc()/free() implementations are actually slower than
> most advanced GC algorithms.
Most straight up GC vs malloc/free benchmarks miss something crucial. A GC
allows one to do substantially *fewer* allocations. It's a lot faster to not
allocate than to allocate.
Consider C strings. You need to keep track of ownership of it. That often means
creating extra copies, rather than sharing a single copy.
Enter C++'s shared_ptr. But that works by, for each object, allocating a
*second* chunk of memory to hold the reference count. Right off the bat, you've
got twice as many allocations & frees with shared_ptr than a GC would have.
More information about the Digitalmars-d