On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 02:32:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:57:23AM +0000, zjh via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 01:32:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh
>> wrote:
>>
>> Can I make full use of the `STD` library without garbage
>> collection?
>> If this is achieved, it can be advertised everywhere.
>> ,Then why not remove `GC` on the home page?.
>
> Why bend over backwards to please the GC-phobic crowd? They've
> already made up their minds, there's no convincing them.
>
> Having a GC IME is an extremely powerful thing, contrary to
> what the GC haters will tell you. It frees up your APIs from
> being littered with memory-management minutiae. It makes your
> APIs clean, refactorable, and maintainable. Easy to use. It
> makes your code clean. You get to make progress in your
> problem domain instead of wasting 75% of your brain power
> thinking about memory management at every step. You save
> countless hours writing manual memory management code, and
> countless more hours debugging said code.
>
> And in D, you also get to choose to use manual memory
> management in performance bottlenecks *where it actually
> matters*. 90% of application code is not on the hot path, it's
> a completely waste of effort to meticulously manage memory in
> such code, when you could be focusing your efforts on the 10%
> hot path where 90% of the performance gains are made.
>
> Writing code without a GC is wasteful of programmer time, which
> equals to wasting money paying programmers to do something that
> should have been done in 10% of the time, leaving the rest of
> the time to work on things that actually matter, like
> implementing features and making progress in your problem
> domain. You spend tons of wages paying said programmers to
> debug memory-related bugs, which are notorious to be extremely
> hard to find and require a lot of time, when these wages could
> have been used to pay them to implement new features and drive
> your business forward. *And* you waste tons of wages paying
> them to maintain code that's needlessly complex due to having
> to manually manage memory all the time. It takes a lot of time
> and effort to maintain such code, time that could have been
> diverted for more useful work had a GC been in place.
>
> And you know what? In spite of all this time and effort,
> programmers get it wrong anyway -- typical C code is full of
> memory leaks, pointer bugs, and buffer overflows. Most of them
> are latent and only trigger in obscure environments and unusual
> inputs, and so lie undiscovered, waiting for the day it
> suddenly explodes on a customer's production environment. Or
> somebody comes up with a security exploit...
>
> With a GC, you instantly eliminate 90% of these problems. Only
> 10% of the time, you actually need to manually manage memory --
> in inner loops and hot paths where it actually matters.
>
> GC phobia is completely irrational and I don't see why we
> should bend over backwards to please that crowd.
>
>
> T
I can't believe this is what still being debated, yet again..
--
D's GC:
- doesn't scale, the more pointers to scan the slower the
collection is
- stop the entire world whenever a collection happen
- no R&D
What's your use case with this?
And you want to attract what kind of people? in a cloud native
world with such GC? what kind of people will you attract if you
are doing worse than NodeJS's GC? scripters? is that what D is? a
language for scripters? want to replace BASH, is that it?
--
You complain about @nogc being what the "gc phobic" people
wanted, and yet they didn't come?
People don't want tags, they want a platform where they can use
D, not "annotated" D
--
-betterC failed to bring C/C++ people?
Yeah, i mean..
```D
struct Test
{
float[32] data;
}
extern (C) int main()
{
Test b;
Test c;
bool r = b == c;
return 0;
}
```
this code doesn't compile in -betterC, who will you attract if
such basic and common code doesn't work?
also it sounds like it is some bone you give to a dog so he can
play and you relax in peace, not a good message
fragmentation, that's what you get
--
GO became ultra popular thanks to **its** GC and its
applications, not because **of a** GC, big difference ;)
--
bandaid solutions doesn't attract people, saying "we have a no GC
story at home" BUT you have to do X, Y, Z, and give up on A, B, C
is not what the people wanted and that you gave the "@nogc tag"
and the "non functioning -betterc"
they want what Rust provide, a modern system programming language
they want what Zig provide, a modern system programming language
they want what Odin provide, a modern system programming language
they want what Jai provide, a modern system programming language
--
Don't expect those people to want a modern Java alternative
Because GO already took that role, something D could have done,
and yet didn't, you have a GC, why it failed? why people
complained about a GC in D? but not a GC in GO?, this is the
message you REFUSE to hear
--
There are no GC-phobia, there is a poor's man GC phobia!, big
difference
Instead of investing billions into a competitive GC, with nobody
wants to do, including the GC advocators, let's adopt the
Allocator aware mindset, it's much cheaper, and much more
effective ;)