4 ms·
Looks like comparing apples and oranges. If Nim has a GC it would be more instructive to compare it with another garbage-collected systems language like OCaml.
by aphexairlines 12y ago
Looks like comparing apples and oranges. If Nim has a GC it would be more instructive to compare it with another garbage-collected systems language like OCaml.
- z92 12y agoWhat's wrong with comparing a GC language with non-GC language?
- lifthrasiir 12y agoWildly different goals, given that there should be some interesting reason to avoid GC nowadays.
- twic 12y agoAn interesting to reason to avoid GC would be a belief that you could make a usable general-purpose language without GC.
- Ygg2 12y agoOr having code that's callable from another GC-ed language like Ruby/Python/etc. Two GCs dancing around each other (e.g. Python calling Nim) is a recipe ripe for problems.
- rdtsc 12y agoHow are they "wildly" different. I can see different but "whildly" really? GC is an implementation detail with some performance characteristics. Nim can turn its GC off. It can do a soft-realtime GC behavior where you limit its maximum time slice.
- tomjakubowski 12y ago> Nim can turn its GC off. At the expense of losing memory safety.
- moomin 12y agoMostly that we already know what the answer's going to be.
- andreaferretti 12y agoYes and no. In fact, Nim can be used without a GC. Actually the GC of Nim is written in Nim, which certinaly proves the point. Now, it is not really convenient to avoid the GC in Nim, and you certainly do not have the safety features of Rust, but it can be done when needed (and you are still writing in something more productive than C)