You don't like GC? Do you?

[Stanislav Blinov]

On Friday, 12 October 2018 at 23:32:34 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, 12 October 2018 at 20:12:26 UTC, Stanislav Blinov

>> That's done first and foremost by stripping out unnecessary 
>> allocations, not by writing "new" every other line and closing 
>> your eyes.
>
> If you need perf in your _scripts_, a use LDC and b) pass -O3 
> which among many other improvements over baseline will promote 
> unnecessary garbage collection to the stack.

If you *need* perf, you write performant code. If you don't need 
perf, the least you can do is *not write* lazy-ass pessimized 
crap.

>> I mean come on, it's 2018. We're writing code for multi-core 
>> and multi-processor systems with complex memory interaction.
>
> We might be sometimes. I suspect that is less likely for a 
> script to fall in that category.

Jesus guys. *All* code falls in that category. Because it is 
being executed by those machines. Yet we all oh so like to 
pretend that doesn't happen, for some bizarre reason.

>> Precisely where in memory your data is, how it got there and 
>> how it's laid out should be bread and butter of any D 
>> programmer. It's true that it isn't critical for one-off 
>> scripts, but so is deallocation.
>>
>> Saying stuff like "do more with GC" is just outright harmful.
>
> That is certainly not an unqualified truth. Yes one shouldn't 
> `new` stuff just for fun, but speed of executable is often not 
> what one is trying to optimise when writing code, e.g. when 
> writing a script one is probably trying to minimise 
> development/debugging time.

That's fine so long as it doesn't unnecessarily *pessimize* 
execution. Unfortunately, when you advertise GC for it's 
awesomeness in your experience with "throwaway" scripts, you're 
sending a very, *very* wrong message.

>> Kids are reading, for crying out loud.
> Oi, you think thats bad? Try reading what some of the other 
> Aussies post, *cough* e.g. a frustrated Manu *cough*

:)