Go, D, and the GC

[Tourist via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 3 October 2015 at 07:49:35 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> 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.

That's basically true, but isn't it a good approximation of the 
real state of affairs? My comment about the D GC being of the 
simple kind was something I've read here on the forums, not on 
e.g. Reddit or the Go forums, so it's probably approximately true 
(why would you falsely bash yourself?). And Google, being a huge 
company, can invest a lot in Go, which includes the GC, and the 
fact that there are articles about its improvements here and 
there suggests that they do invest a lot.