[OT] Re: Why don't you advertise more your language on Quora etc ?

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 18:45:55 UTC, Rico Decho wrote:
>> D seems to be in a situation where those who don't care have a 
>> crap GC which needs to be improved and those who do care have 
>> the tools to deal with it. So there needs to be ongoing 
>> replacement of the D GC until there is something good, this is 
>> a technical problem. That people who care about the effect of 
>> GC still think D is a crap GC-based language implies there is 
>> a marketing problem, not a technical one.
>
> But I don't think that D's GC is fine for people who care about 
> it.

You'd have to be a lot more specific on what exactly you care 
about, since GC always deals with tradeoffs.

>
> If it is, why are people on this forum giving advices on how to 
> disable and/or avoid it for soft real-time applications where a 
> GC freeze can't be tolerated.

Because there are applications where the tradeoffs chosen for D's 
GC can't be tolerated.

>
> D's GC isn't a crap at all, but better designs and 
> implementations exist, and Nim's GC is one of them.

Better implementations of the same design, probably, but I 
haven't checked. As far as I've been able to discern on a quick 
look, Nim's current GC is also a mark-and-sweep GC, with the same 
tradeoffs as D's GC, i.e. if you can't accept D's GC in an 
application, you cannot accept Nim's.
Better designs? That, again, depends on what tradeoffs you're 
willing to make.
For the goal "we want throughput on-par with C" I'm not aware of 
better designs.

>
> We can either learn from it, or ignore it... But the second 
> solution won't make D more appropriate for soft real-time 
> scenarios...

You'll have to be very explicit in what you think we should learn.
And D is perfectly viable for real-time scenarios: Don't call the 
GC.