Possibility of non stop-the-world GC in the future?

[Sergei Nosov]

On Monday, 18 February 2013 at 17:58:56 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Yes correct. But if you would do them otherwise you wouldn't 
> need a GC in the first place. The whole point of the GC is that 
> you can be more productive by not caring about this stuff.
>

Well, that's kind of strange. I guess std library is not the 
place where you want to care about productivity over performance. 
Is there anything preventing fixing those? Did you brought that 
up to the developers? Or may be you know their attitude?

> Correct. Still I rather have a system that gives me errors when 
> I make hidden runtime allocations then having the GC clean them 
> up for me. Coding by convetion never works out well, especially 
> in lager teams.
>

Then I guess you would rather use C++ than D. =) It's more of 
"idiomatic" subject than anything else. One of the ways C++ and D 
differs is the answer to the question "what should happen if you 
do something *fancy*?".

The C++ answer is "the program should crash (go to the undefined 
behavior area)". And the D answer is "the program should 
sacrifice performance/memory, but remain in a well-defined state 
and *do the right thing*".