d future or plans for d3

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 12/18/11 5:22 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 23:13:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/18/11 4:53 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 20:32:18 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> That is an interesting opportunity. At any rate, I am 100% convinced
>>>> precise GC is the only way to go, and I think I've convinced Walter to
>>>> a good extent as well.
>>>
>>> Sacrificing something (performance, executable size) for something else
>>> is not an unilateral improvement.
>>
>> I think we can do a lot toward improving the footprint and performance
>> of a precise GC while benefitting of its innate advantages.
>
> Still, a more conservative GC will always outperform a more precise one
> in scanning speed.

I'm not sure. I seem to recall discussions with pathological cases when 
large regions of memory were scanned for no good reason.

> Without knowing the price, it would be unwise to jump
> into it without even considering the possibility of leaving a choice.

Sure.

> I am not against the idea, but I believe that more research is needed
> before rash decisions are taken. If the performance penalty turns out to
> be insignificant, then choice would be pointless. And if there will be a
> considerable performance gap, the "burden" of choice (compiler
> switch/boolean runtime setting + maintenance costs) could be worth it.

I ordered the GC book :o).


Andrei