post on using go 1.5 and GC latency

[Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +0000, rsw0x via 
> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> […]
>> 
>> because Go is not a general purpose language.
>
> Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a 
> successor to C as envisioned by Rob Pike, Russ Cox, and others 
> (I am not sure how much input Brian Kernighan has had). 
> However, because of current traction in Web servers and general 
> networking, it is clear that that is where the bulk of the 
> libraries are. Canonical also use it for Qt UI applications. I 
> am not sure of Google real intent for Go on Android, but there 
> is one.
>
>> A concurrent GC for D would kill D. Go programs saw a 25-50% 
>> performance decrease across the board for the lower latencies.
>
> They also saw a 100% increase in performance when it was 
> rewritten, and a 20% fall with this latest rewrite. I 
> anticipate great improvement for the 1.6 rewrite.  I am 
> surprised they are retaining having only a single garbage 
> collector: different usages generally require different garbage 
> collection strategies. Having said that Java is moving from 
> having four collectors, to having one, it is going to be 
> interesting to see if G1 meets the needs of all JVM usages.
>
>> D could make some very minor changes and be capable of a 
>> per-thread GC with none of these performance drawbacks, but 
>> nobody seems very interested in it.
>
> Until some organization properly funds a suite of garbage 
> collectors for different performance targets, you have what 
> there is.

I didn't mean to start again the whole GC and Go vs D thing.  
Just that one ought to know the lay of the land as it develops.

Out of curiosity, how much funding is required to develop the 
more straightforward kind of GCs ?  Or to take what's been done 
and  make it possible for others to use?  It needn't be a single 
organisation I would think if there are many that would benefit 
and one doesn't get bogged down in a mentality of people worrying 
about possibly spurious free rider problems.  Since the D 
Foundation seems under way, it seems worth asking the question 
first and thinking about goals without worrying for now about 
what seems realistic.