2 ms·
> The problem isn't having a GC, is its poor implementation. OTOH Java and .Net exist and have large investment (D is younger than C#), so for people who are f
by masklinn 3y ago
> The problem isn't having a GC, is its poor implementation.
OTOH Java and .Net exist and have large investment (D is younger than C#), so for people who are fine with GC, there are already plenty of "C++ alternatives". What's left is people who can't or won't use a GC, and for them a GC'd language can not be an alternative.
- TylerE 3y agoThere is a substantial… feel… difference in using a well gced language that isn’t tied to a monolithic runtime. A big part of that is having zero perceptible startup overhead, since it isn’t parsing a class path or trying to load a bunch of dlls or anything beyond what your code explicitly doe + a much more minimalistic than you might expect GC runtime. Often only 20-30kb of machine code. While it hasn’t really taken off yet, I’ll point to nim, specifically with its very recently stable arc GC, as a very compelling local (at least) maximum in this space.