GCs in the news

[currysoup via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 11:15:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
>
> Don't know if it's really a "major concern" or the favorite 
> weak spot that C++ et. al guys like to flog to death in order 
> to distract from the many strengths that D has (in comparison 
> with C++ et al.) The answer is always "D has GC, it's the 
> Devil, don't touch it!" Also, let's put a little faith in the 
> brilliant developers behind D, I'm sure there's a huge 
> performance boost for D around the corner.

I'm not here to hate on D, the reason I read these forums is 
because I love the language.

I feel it is a major concern, if I'm starting a project with low 
latency requirements* I certainly think twice about using D. I 
think this could apply especially to people outside the community 
who might not have experienced the benefits D provides. The issue 
is not there is a GC, it's that the GC is viewed as bad. If the 
GC was as good as Azul's C4 GC then D would be perfect. I'm not 
sure if D's memory model supports such a collector though.

*According to Don Clugston's talk the default GC can pause for 
~250ms which is totally insane for any kind of interactive or 
near-real-time system. If their concurrent version of the GC 
could reduce this to 10ms it shows the GC implementation is 
fairly naive.