Would you pay for GC?

H. S. Teoh hsteoh at quickfur.ath.cx
Tue Jan 25 14:35:07 UTC 2022

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 02:24:48PM +0000, bachmeier via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 January 2022 at 03:37:57 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
> > Apropos recent discussion, here is a serious question: would you pay
> > for either of these?
> > 
> > - High-throughput/scalable gc.  High sustained allocation rates,
> > large heaps, many cores, compacting&generational
> > 
> > - Concurrent gc.  No pauses
> What you are going to hear is "I'd like someone else to do a bunch of
> work, and if it benefits me, I'll think about using it."
> If you're serious about this, you should put together an extensive set
> of numbers demonstrating clear failure of D's garbage collector,
> failure of existing D solutions, and well-defined opportunities for
> improvement.

+1.  Around these parts I hear a lot of complaints about GC this, GC
that, but I've yet to see actual performance measurements that show just
how bad the GC is.  It would be nice to see some actual numbers (and the
actual code where the bad GC performance happens) that would show us
just where D's GC is not up to the task, so that we have a concrete way
of measuring any progress (or lack thereof) made on the GC.


The only difference between male factor and malefactor is just a little emptiness inside.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list