On 17 April 2014 10:06, Michel Fortin via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

On 2014-04-16 23:20:07 +0000, Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> said:

On 4/16/2014 3:42 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:

ARC may in fact be the most advantageous for a specific use case, but that in no
way means that all use cases will see a performance improvement, and in all
likelihood, may see a decrease in performance.

Right on. Pervasive ARC is very costly, meaning that one will have to define alongside it all kinds of schemes to mitigate those costs, all of which are expensive for the programmer to get right.

It's not just ARC. As far as I know, most GC algorithms require some action to be taken when changing the value of a pointer. If you're seeing this as unnecessary bloat, then there's not much hope in a better GC for D either.

But beyond that I wonder if @nogc won't entrench that stance even more.