manual memory management

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 at 02:06:02 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Rob T wrote:
>
>> I am not actually against the use of the GC, I was only 
>> wondering if it could
>> be fully removed. I too did not at first agree with the GC 
>> concept, thinking
>> the same things you mention. I still have to consider 
>> performance issues
>> caused by the GC, but the advantage is that I can do things 
>> that before I
>> would not even bother attempting because the cost was too 
>> high. The way I
>> program has changed for the better, there's no doubt about it.
>
> There's some issues that can rightfully be termed "caused by 
> the GC", but
> most of the performance issues are probably better labled 
> "agregious use
> of short lived allocations", which cost performance regardless 
> of how
> memory is managed.  The key difference being that in manual 
> management the
> impact is spread out and in periodic garbage collection it's 
> batched up.
>
> My primary point being, blaming the GC when it's the 
> application style
> that generates enough garbage to result in wanting to blame the 
> GC for the
> performance cost is misplaced blame.
>
> My 2 cents,
> Brad

You'll also find out that D's GC is kind of slow, but this is an 
implementation issue more than a conceptual problem with he GC.