Garbage Collection for Systems Programmers

[Carl Sturtivant]

On Saturday, 6 April 2024 at 16:28:25 UTC, Sergey wrote:
> So what is the point then you wanted to discuss in this thread?

This is not about what I wanted to discuss in this thread, it's 
about what IS being discussed in this thread. Finding strategic 
purpose via the future of GC.

On Saturday, 6 April 2024 at 00:29:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> Chasing no-GC as far as we did was a mistake that cost us 
>> precious time and scarce resources. We need to be mature 
>> enough to admit that it was a mistake and correct our course. 
>> Given the lessons and direction of the industry over the 
>> intervening years, I would strongly argue that now is the time 
>> to return our focus to the GC.
> [...]
>
> +100.  While there *have* been improvements in our current GC 
> over the past years, we're running against a brick wall in 
> terms of available GC algorithms, because of the pessimistic 
> situation of no write barriers. That closes the door to many of 
> the major advancements in GC algorithms over the past decade or 
> two. It's time we stop sitting on the fence and commit to a 
> GC-centric language that actually has a competitive GC to speak 
> of, one on the level of Java or C#'s incremental generational 
> GCs.

Let's not confuse requirements with implementation. By muddling 
in all the ins-and-outs of implementation difficulty you blur the 
wider picture and make things look more pointless. Should 
everyone just give up? Your reply suggests that posture.