The "no gc" crowd

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 09.10.2013 16:30, schrieb Manu:
> On 9 October 2013 17:31, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com
> <mailto:newshound2 at digitalmars.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/9/2013 12:29 AM, Manu wrote:
>
>         Does anyone here REALLY believe that a bunch of volunteer
>         contributors can
>         possibly do what apple failed to do with their squillions of
>         dollars and engineers?
>         I haven't heard anybody around here propose the path to an
>         acceptable solution.
>         It's perpetually in the too-hard basket, hence we still have the
>         same GC as
>         forever and it's going nowhere.
>
>
>     What do you propose?
>
>
> ARC. I've been here years now, and I see absolutely no evidence that the
> GC is ever going to improve. I can trust ARC, it's predictable, I can
> control it.
> Also, proper support for avoiding the GC without severe inconvenience as
> constantly keeps coming up. But I don't think there's any debate on that
> one. Everyone seems to agree.

As someone that is in the sidelines and doesn't really use D, my opinion 
should not count that much, if at all.

However, rewriting D's memory management to be ARC based will have 
performance impact if the various D compilers aren't made ARC aware.

Then there is the whole point of rewriting phobos and druntime to use 
ARC instead of GC.

Will the return on investment pay off, instead of fixing the existing GC?

What will be the message sent to the outsiders wondering if D is stable 
enough to be adopted, and see these constant rewrites?

--
Paulo