A betterC base

[Dmitry Olshansky]

On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 21:24:14 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 2/9/2018 1:14 AM, meppl wrote:
>> let's say python is supposed to offer slow execution. So, 
>> python doesn't prove reference counting is fast (even if it is 
>> possible in theory). D on the other hand provides binaries who 
>> are expected to execute fast.
>
> I believe it has been shown (sorry, no reference) that GC is 
> faster in aggregate time, and RC is perceived faster because it 
> doesn't have pauses.

RC is a form of GC. Also tracing GCs with pause times under 1ms 
are in production for seceral languages now.

>
> This makes GC better for batch jobs, and RC better for 
> interactive code.

Yes GCs with lower pause time sacrifices throughput for low 
latency. RC included.

>
> Of course, the issue can get more complex. GC uses 3x the 
> memory of RC,

  I’ve seen figures of about x2 but that was in an old paper on 
Boehm GC.

> and so you can get extra slowdowns from swapping

Oh come on... anything touching swap is usually frozen these 
days. Plus heap size is usually statically bounded for GC 
languages, choosen not to grow beyond ram.

> and cache misses.