GCs in the news

[Mike via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 12:07:47 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 July 2014 at 11:44:56 UTC, Mike wrote:
>> Being able to specify an alternate memory manager at 
>> compile-time, link-time and/or runtime would be most 
>> advantageous, and probably put an end to the GC-phobia.
>
> AFAIK, GC is not directly referenced in druntime, so you 
> already should be able to link with different GC 
> implementation. If you provide all symbols requested by the 
> code, the linker won't link default GC module.

Yes, I believe you are correct.  I also believe there is even a 
GCStub in the runtime that uses malloc without free.  What's 
missing is API documentation and examples that makes such 
features accessible.

Also missing, are language/runtime hooks that could allow users 
to try alternative memory management schemes such as ARC and find 
what works best for them through experimentation.

In short, IMO, D should not embrace one type of automatic memory 
management, they should make it extensible.  In time two ore 
three high quality memory managers will prevail.

Mike