3 ms·
Obviously I'm not Walter, but IMO, D's approach to GC does not create any tension. It's just a systems language with a GC that's there if you want to use it. Yo
by aldacron 5y ago
Obviously I'm not Walter, but IMO, D's approach to GC does not create any tension. It's just a systems language with a GC that's there if you want to use it. You can disable it completely or only where you need to. Yes, you lose some features when you do so (like automanaged memory for dynamic array operations), but the tradeoffs are well-known and worth the loss when you need to make them. Consider WekaIO, which used D for their filesystem. No GC anywhere:
https://dlang.org/blog/2018/12/04/interview-liran-zvibel-of-wekaio/ https://dlang.org/blog/2018/12/04/interview-liran-zvibel-of-...
- skocznymroczny 5y agoI think there's more to the tension than GC. GC is the red herring that everyone jumps to when it comes to such comparisons, but I think there are many more issues that could cause tensions. For example OOP features, inheritance, properties, that kind of things. For system programmer oriented folks these features are usually considered bloat, more high-level/application programmers consider them very valuable features. For me currently D provides a good level of balance between those worlds, but the aforementioned GC isn't an issue for me at all so I have it easy.
- pjmlp 5y agoDepends, the future could already have been here, instead of playing catchup with the past. "Eric Bier Demonstrates Cedar" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_dt7NG38V4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_dt7NG38V4