3 ms·
I could probably survive not using most of the standard library (I might try to do this anyway to avoid issues with deployment, as I have done in the past in C+
by yoklov 12y ago
I could probably survive not using most of the standard library (I might try to do this anyway to avoid issues with deployment, as I have done in the past in C++).
I'm not a huge fan of closures in many cases (if they outlive the scope of their defining function I think it leads to unclear code), so the fact that they might allocate is not a huge deal to me. Array literals silently allocating GCed memory concerns me greatly however...
I remember hearing about efforts to remove a lot of the reliance on the GC, and I guess I was hoping that that was further along than it sounds like it is.
Still, I'll try not to pass judgement until I try it out on something small. There are a lot of other potential issues unrelated to the GC that would probably be dealbreakers for me.
- Profan 12y agoThe array literals problem isn't so bad, the thing is static arrays in D are distinct types, so you'd say int[2] = [1, 2]; which would go on the stack, but doing int[] = [1, 2]; would allocate since it would be a dynamic array then. Good luck with trying it out, you make tradeoffs as with any other language :)