Tasks, actors and garbage collection

[russhy]

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 09:22:12 UTC, evilrat wrote:
> On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 06:35:25 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Sunday, 25 April 2021 at 19:41:39 UTC, russhy wrote:
>>>> We already have zig and rust, adding yet another fancy slick 
>>>> no GC landuage is dead end.
>>>
>>>
>>> Same defeatist mentality i keep reading here, this is not 
>>> what D need
>>>
>>>> So please stop your no-GC whine. People already heard you, 
>>>> more than once too.
>>>
>>> I will never stop fighting for D from the people who wants to 
>>> ruin it with more GC
>>
>> D is open source, you are free to take care of your special 
>> flavoured D.
>
> There is already Volt language, and Odin and Zig languages 
> which is very D inspired and "simple" compared to D, there is a 
> lot to choose from.
> But Take GC from D and you get C2 language (guess where it is 
> now? oh I've heard they given up and started C3 language which 
> is even better than C2, fantastic!), and there was even more 
> "simple" C-- (C minus minus) language, but can you guess where 
> it is now?
> Or maybe he want to repeat Python 2 vs 3 story? That was almost 
> killed entire language. D just can't afford switching direction 
> amid its course. But what if this really necessary? Ok, why 
> not, just put it under a new name. But don't touch the original.
>
> That guy teaches us about how bad GC is and provides 
> nonsensical examples of how brave developers avoid GC by all 
> means because of just how evil it is, meanwhile Unity have been 
> working just fine on mobile for 10+ years, and UE4 works just 
> fine (CPU performance wise) on average 4 years old smartphone.
>
> I also like how he hijacked the thread and expects answers from 
> Walter and Andrey who never showed up in the thread. He demands 
> from them make something because he wanted it.
> That's definitely not going to work.
>
> If he is so serious about reducing GC dependency he could 
> probably start patching phobos with no-GC functionality to be 
> on par, that would be at least useful, but in the long run it 
> will just add clutter, technical debt and bloat(omg!).
> To make phobos usable with @nogc it would need some serious 
> rethinking, research and planning. It is not just "remove GC" 
> and done, this will require adding monads and stuff, pattern 
> matching, and more. The result will probably end up look like 
> Rust too.

Again, this shows how little you know

UE4 GC is fine if you make a hello world, ask every studios what 
they have to do to workaround the GC, they wish it didn't exist, 
and Epic is working on ditching the GC with their upcoming data 
oriented stack, just like Unity is working on ditching the GC 
with their HPC#/Burst solutions

So little do you know that it makes people believe GC is fine

This is why we can't have nice things, and this is why people are 
coming up with new languages instead of embracing Dlang, you guys 
make bad press for D, you are not pragmatic enough

and i never said ditch the GC, you do what ever you want, but the 
language shouldn't expect you to use a GC, it should expect you 
to provide what ever allocator is proper for the task