More radical ideas about gc and reference counting
Manu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat May 10 21:48:10 PDT 2014
On 11 May 2014 08:40, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 5/10/2014 8:54 AM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Recall too that D has significant opportunity to
>> improve on ARC as implemented by other languages,
> You're essentially arguing that one is easy pickings and the other is
> impractically difficult, but they're actually about the same level.
That's not actually what I was arguing at all. I was arguing that D's
ARC offering would likely be superior to any that have come before,
due to inherent advantages in the language, and by all reports, D is
incapable of having the worlds best GC implemented successfully for
If it is possible to implement the worlds best GC in D, it's still not
a done deal though. We still need to consider; does the worlds best GC
remain incompatible with my workload at a fundamental level? What do
we do about destructors? If ARC is within 10% of the worlds best GC,
and both are equally attainable in D's context, is 10% a fair price to
pay for a more inclusive technology?
Who is it that will declare that 10% difference a deal-breaker?
(they're obviously not here now, since D's existing GC is not in that
With them in mind, and upon an ARC platform, can we offer those users
the GC as a library? Or perhaps a mechanism to disable RC code
generation in their local code and falling back upon the
cycle-collecting GC already in place to pick up the task?
More information about the Digitalmars-d