Go, D, and the GC

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 2 Oct 2015 1:32 pm, "Tourist via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, 2 October 2015 at 06:53:56 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> On 1 Oct 2015 11:35 am, "Tourist via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> good GC. And they keep working on it, e.g.
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/12800-sweep-free-alloc.md
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/LICENSE
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Wouldn't it largely benefit D? I guess that I'm not the first one to
think about it. Thoughts?
>>
>> Why do you think Go's GC might be better than D's?  Is it because we
lack the PR when changes/innovations are done to the GC in druntime?  Do
you *know* about anything new that has changed or improved in D's GC over
the last two years?
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear about this.
>
>
> I know that it has the reputation of being of the simplest kind. Haven't
looked at the code actually (and I wouldn't understand much even if I did).

So I doubt you've looked at Go's GC code either.  In which case it is a
matter of PR which led to your suggestion.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20151003/9c78f7af/attachment.html>