A betterC base

[psychoticRabbit]

On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 23:27:25 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 15:55:09 UTC, JN wrote:
>> Citation needed on how garbage collection has been a smashing 
>> success based on its merits rather than the merits of the 
>> languages that use garbage collection.
>
> Who cares? Even if the success isn't because of GC per se, the 
> ubiquity of it in the real world means it certainly isn't a 
> deal breaker.

GC is all about time/space tradeoffs. That's all one can say 
about it really.

Yes, the 'ubiquity of it in the real world' (in popular and not 
so popular languages) suggest that most accept this tradeoff, in 
favour of using GC.

But many still don't..

And many that do, might decide otherwise in the future... cause 
I'm not sure how well GC really scales...(in the future, the size 
of the heap might be terabytes..or more).

That's not an argument for not defaulting to GC in D.

It's an argument for when GC in D, could be a deal breaker.

So it's good thing for the D community to consider these people 
as well - rather than saying 'who cares'.

In the end, GC just adds to all the other bloat that's associated 
with programming in the modern era. The more we can reduce bloat, 
the -betterD.

I'm glad there is alot of research in this area, and increasingly 
so - that's really important, cause the story of automatic memory 
management is far from over - even in D it seems.