Bottom line re GC in D

[Araq via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 at 19:57:56 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 July 2014 at 11:21:13 UTC, bearophile wrote:
>> Adrian:
>>
>>> As for your second question (i.e. how good the GC needs to be 
>>> for me), I would probably be satisfied with a GC that matches 
>>> the Java one
>>
>> This will not happen even in one hundred years. So if that's 
>> what you want, you will never be satisfied by D GC.
>>
>
> Actually, I think we can do better than Java, because we have
> type qualifiers and less indirection. That isn't unseen: OCaml's
> GC is more performant than Java's. We certainly do not have the
> resources java has, but we have a language that is way more GC
> friendly.

No, you don't. No distinction between GC'ed and non GC'ed 
pointers, interior pointers are everywhere, sharing GC'ed memory 
between threads is unrestricted, casting to const/immutable might 
be officially undefined but in practice abounds so you better 
don't take advantage of that, excellent C interop means that you 
have no chance but to scan the stacks conservatively.