More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[Manu via Digitalmars-d]

On 6 May 2014 17:16, Paulo Pinto via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 May 2014 at 03:40:47 UTC, Manu via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
> Java Azul VM GC was already handling 1 TB in 2010.

Is D compatible with this GC? And how does it go in an environment
with 128mb of ram, and no free memory?


> http://qconsf.com/sf2010/dl/qcon-sanfran-2010/slides/GilTene_GCNirvanaHighThroughputAndLowLatencyTogether.pdf
>
> GC is not the only way of doing automatic memory management, but
> this ongoing discussion steams more from D's current GC status
> and respective phobia in C world, and less from what a modern GC
> is capable of.

It's not a 'phobia', it's an incompatibility. Show me a 'modern' GC
that's compatible with realtime+embedded, and also compatible with D,
and then we can talk... I'm sure there's a very good reason nobody has
raised such a technology for consideration.
Framing the C world in this way is completely unfair. I've spent years
here trying to reconcile my relationship with the GC. I've actually
defended the GC on numerous occasions. I don't want to reject the GC,
it's very convenient... but I think it's reached the point where I
have to face the music. I want to know the plan, and if it remains
incompatible with my industry, then I can't reasonably continue to
advocate D in my field, can I?

If it were my language, I know what I'd do. It may require some
radical changes, and I would do it because I simply had _no other
choice_. Please, make suggestions! It's been years, and I'm still
waiting to hear another realistic proposal.