LinkedIn Article to be: Why you need to start moving off C/C++ to D, now.

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 23:02:19 UTC, Araq wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 July 2014 at 21:11:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 09:03:36PM +0000, Araq via 
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> >
>>> >The only way to *really* guarantee 100% predictable memory
>>> >reclamation is to write your own. Except that we all know how
>>> >scalable and bug-free that is. Not to mention, when you need 
>>> >to
>>> >deallocate a large complex data structure, *somebody* has to 
>>> >do the
>>> >work -- either you do it yourself, or the reference counting
>>> >implementation, or the GC. No matter how you cut it, it's 
>>> >work that
>>> >has to be done, and you have to pay for it somehow; the cost 
>>> >isn't
>>> >going to magically disappear just because you use reference 
>>> >counting
>>> >(or whatever other scheme you dream up).
>>> >
>>> 
>>> Actually it completely disappears in a copying collector 
>>> since only
>>> the live data is copied over ...
>>
>> Nope, you pay for it during the copy. Read the linked paper, 
>> it explains
>> the duality of tracing and reference-counting. Whether you 
>> trace the
>> references from live objects or from dead objects, the overall
>> computation is equivalent, and the cost is effectively the 
>> same. Once
>> you've applied the usual optimizations, it's just a matter of 
>> time/space
>> tradeoffs.
>
> This is wrong on so many levels... Oh well, I don't care. 
> Believe what you want.

Please enlighten us.