GCs in the news

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/17/14, 2:57 AM, currysoup wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:26:38 UTC, Chris wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 09:20:36 UTC, Russel Winder via
>> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> It appears still to be a general meme that performance required no GC
>>> and GC mean poor performance. The debate has been restarted on the Go
>>> mailing list under the banner "go without garbage collector". The
>>> response to will Go remove the garbage collector was somewhat
>>> unequivocal: nope.
>>
>> That's good news in a way. If a big company accepts GC and the Go
>> crowd go with it (pardon the pun), then it will find more acceptance
>> (as Paulo pointed out in a different thread).
>
> It's not about "acceptance", it's about the reality that a GC is not a
> universal solution to memory management.
>
> Just from watching a few of the DConf 2014 talks, if you want
> performance you avoid the GC at all costs (even if that means allocating
> into huge predefined buffers).

Not at all costs! warp creates a little litter during e.g. command line 
preprocessing and other inconsequential tasks. The core of it is careful 
to not allocate frequently in inner loops.

> Once you're going to these lengths to
> avoid garbage collection it begs the question, why are you even using
> this language? Within this community the question is rhetorical but to
> outsiders I feel it's a major concern.

I agree there's a perception issue.


Andrei