GCs in the news

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 14:05:02 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 13:29:18 UTC, John wrote:
>> If D came without GC, it would have replaced C++ a long time 
>> ago!
>
> That's overly optimistic I think, but I believe that the 
> adoption rate would have been far greater for a D without GC, 
> or perhaps with a more GC friendly design, as the GC comes up 
> first or close in every D discussion with prospective adopters.
>
> However, it's way too late to change that now. IMO, the way 
> forward involves removing all or most hidden allocations from 
> the D libraries, making programming sans GC easier (@nogc 
> everywhere, a compiler switch, documentation for how to work 
> around the lack of GC, etc.) and a much better, precise GC as 
> part of the D release. Any spec changes necessary to support 
> precision should be in a fast path.

Yeah. Best avoid GC in the first place. If GC can stop the world 
for ~250ms, wouldn't it be possible (just an innocent thought) to 
tell the GC only to work, if it can guarantee to stay below a 
certain threshold, and do the rest later (or in a parallel 
thread)?