GCs in the news

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 22:06:01 UTC, Brad Anderson wrote:
> I agreed with this for awhile but following the conversation 
> here 
> <https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2149> 
> I'm more inclined to think we should be adding lazy versions of 
> functions where possible rather than versions with OutputRange 
> parameters. It's more flexible that way and can result in even 
> fewer allocations than even OutputRange parameters would have 
> (i.e. you can have chains of lazy operations and only allocate 
> on the final step, or not at all in some cases).
>
> Laziness isn't appropriate or possible everywhere but it's much 
> easier to go from lazy to eager than the other way around.
>
>> [...]

This is not comparable. Lazy input range based solutions do not 
make it possible to change allocation strategy, they simply defer 
the allocation point. Ideally both are needed.