GCs in the news

[currysoup via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:26:38 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:20:36 UTC, Russel Winder via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> It appears still to be a general meme that performance 
>> required no GC
>> and GC mean poor performance. The debate has been restarted on 
>> the Go
>> mailing list under the banner "go without garbage collector". 
>> The
>> response to will Go remove the garbage collector was somewhat
>> unequivocal: nope.
>
> That's good news in a way. If a big company accepts GC and the 
> Go crowd go with it (pardon the pun), then it will find more 
> acceptance (as Paulo pointed out in a different thread).

It's not about "acceptance", it's about the reality that a GC is 
not a universal solution to memory management.

Just from watching a few of the DConf 2014 talks, if you want 
performance you avoid the GC at all costs (even if that means 
allocating into huge predefined buffers). Once you're going to 
these lengths to avoid garbage collection it begs the question, 
why are you even using this language? Within this community the 
question is rhetorical but to outsiders I feel it's a major 
concern.