C++17

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 18:57:45 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 15:59:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
> Grøstad wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 15:51:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 10:39:03 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
>>> Grøstad wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 09:33:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>>>> No that would be stupid to make that the default as it is 
>>>>> unsafe.
>>>>
>>>> When would you estimate that D could have a production ready 
>>>> default memory managment solution (without GC)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now, D can do the exact same as C++ .
>>
>> Not really, but that was not the question. So let me repeat:
>>
>> When would you estimate that D will have a production ready 
>> default memory management solution (without GC).
>
> I don't think it is desirable. I do think we should focus on 
> having GC.malloc/GC.free have the same level of perfs than 
> malloc/free, which is very doable.
>
> Now as to when, well, I'm waiting for your PR.

They will never have the performance of e.g, jemalloc.

re: GC in D,
GC in D is a pipedream, if it wasn't, why is it still so horrible?
Everyone keeps dancing around the fact that if the GC wasn't 
horrible, nobody would work around it.
The fact that the GC has to be worked around is proof enough that 
the GC has failed.