Will the D GC be awesome?

[renoX]

On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 at 21:31:52 UTC, 
DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
>   D is pretty cool, perhaps someday I can use it instead of C++ 
> and have cool shit like fast build times, modules, no more 
> bloody headers, sane templates, CTFE, UFCS etc
>
>  But can the D GC ever be made:
>
> 1. precise
> 2. able to scale to large-ish data set(2gig+)
> 3. No long stalls(anything over a couple millisecond(<3))


This figure is quite meaningless: if I split a collection phase 
in several 2ms portion, it would be conformat yet the user would 
still see long stalls: you need to define both a period and a 
maximum period of time usable by the GC in this period.


> Q. Curious, would it be compacting?


Add VM-aware GC (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2391) and 
you'll have also my ideal but non existant GC.

That said I know two free languages with a "real time"  GC: 
SuperCollider and Nimrod.

>
>  If not then I'm stuck not using it much--
>
> Which leaves me with structs, and lets just say D struct are 
> not impressive--
>
>
> * Oh and on a totally unrelated note, D needs Multiple return 
> values. Lua has it, it's awesome.


Agreed here.

Regards,
renoX

> D doesn't want to be left out does it?
>
> * OpCmp returning an int is fugly I r sad
>
> * why is haskell so much shorter syntax, can D get that nice 
> syntax plssssssssss
>
> STAB!