Would you pay for GC?
notrealemail at gmail.com
Wed Jan 26 02:09:24 UTC 2022
On Tuesday, 25 January 2022 at 07:13:41 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 January 2022 at 06:13:31 UTC, Random Dude 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
>> I'd pay to have it removed and replaced with ARC.
>> GC in it's current form can not compete with other more
>> performant GCs and it shouldn't. D is in a unique position to
>> enable people to write code as if they're writing python and
>> also accommodate them when they want to do low-level
>> If we could just have automatic reference counting both the GC
>> and No-GC people would be happy. It's okay if that route
>> changes how pointers work (metadata would have to be added and
>> some code would break), this is the right move in the long run.
> ARC will also not compete, unless one goes the extra mile of
> making the compiler ARC aware, elide retain/release calls, do
> cascade deletions in background threads, take care on cascade
> deletions to avoid stack overflows on destructor calls, provide
> multicore friendly versions of them,.....
> If you are paying to replace GC with ARC, without putting the
> money to reach Swift level of performance (which is still
> pretty lame versus last gen tracing GCs in Java/.NET), then you
> will be getting lemons.
> I can already see it, the forums being inundated with complains
> about ARC performance versus other languages.
Even then people are dissatisfied, apparently.
I asked Reddit why ARC isn't used more widely despite Swift being
so successful and was **swiftly**(pun intended 😉) corrected that
Swift user share has become 50% of what it once was at it's peak.
More information about the Digitalmars-d