C and memory safety comments by me

Wulfklaue via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri May 19 01:58:33 PDT 2017


On Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 19:33:25 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Thanks for the link. I don't understand what they mean in 
> saying I don't get Rust's vision.

A lot of Rust users seem to think they own the memory safe 
market. Language with GC = Bad. What they forget is that a good 
GC can be unnoticeable in code execution.

Take these silly benchmarks:

https://github.com/kostya/benchmarks

Despite Rust not being a GC language, you expect the Rust results 
to have a lower memory usage then D. Or D to have a larger 
execution time for the lower memory ( early GC cleanup cycles = 
lower memory usage but performance hits ).

The D Ldc vs Rust are the most relevant as its the same backend. 
But even with DMD or GCC those cpu/mem results can be better then 
Rust. Even Crystal pushes better results on the same backend.

But i was under the assumption that anything that is not Rust is 
simply bad? /s




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list