radical ideas about GC and ARC : need to be time driven?

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 09:16:54PM +0200, Xavier Bigand via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> My concerns as Dlang user are :
>  - Even if GC is the solution, how long I need suffer with
>  destructor's issues (calls order)?

Dtor calling order and GC are fundamentally incompatible. I don't think
this will ever be changed. The problem is, how do you guarantee that the
GC will only clean up garbage in the order of reference? You can't do
this without killing GC performance.


>  - When we will able to see a performant GC implementation can satisfy
>  someone like Manu :) ? Months, years, a decade?

I think somebody is working on porting a D1 concurrent GC to D2, so
hopefully that will be done sometime in the near future... But I don't
know if that's enough to satisfy Manu. His requirements are pretty high.
:)


>  - Same question if D migrate to ARC?

I highly doubt D will migrate to ARC. ARC will probably become
*possible*, but some language features fundamentally rely on the GC, and
I can't see how that will ever be changed.



> Why theses questions :
>  - Memory management seems to be one of last (or the last) critical
>  point for a vastly adoption in production.
[...]

Nah, it's just the thing that gets complained about the most. There are
other big issues that need to be fixed. Like compatibility with handheld
architectures. Completing the implementation of @safe. Fixing the holes
in the type system (esp. w.r.t. const/immutable). Issues with 'shared'.
AA implementation.

I'm sure people can come up with many other big items that need to be
addressed.


T

-- 
Mediocrity has been pushed to extremes.