November 06, 2009
Max Samukha, el  6 de noviembre a las 11:10 me escribiste:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:29:43 -0300, Leandro Lucarella <> wrote:
> >See my other response about efficiency of D when using new/classes a lot. You just can't do it efficiently in D, ask bearophile for some benchmarks ;)
> This is in part because D doesn't have a compacting GC. A compacting GC implies allocation speeds comparable with the speed of allocation on stack. I guess many bearophile's benchmarks do not account for GC collection cycles, which should be slower in C#/Java because of the need to move objects. I think, fair benchmarks should always include garbage collection times.

I don't think it's slower, because GCs usually treat differently small and large objects (the D GC already does that). So very small objects (that are the ones more likely to get allocated and freed in huge ammounts) are copied and large objects usually not. Moving a small object is not much more work than doing a sweep, and you get the extra bonus of not having to scan the whole heap, just the live data. This is a huge gain, which make moving collectors very fast (at the expense of extra memory since you have to reserve twice the programs working set).

Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)           
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
Dale tu mano al mono, pero no el codo, dado que un mono confianzudo es
	-- Ricardo Vaporeso. La Reja, Agosto de 1912.
November 06, 2009
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> SafeD is, unfortunately, not finished at the moment. I want to leave in place a stub that won't lock our options. Here's what we currently have:

Is the whole SafeD thing trying to do something similar to Microsoft's "managed/unmanaged" code thing? I don't know much about it, but I had relegated the managed/unmanaged thing to being C++-like (unmanaged) or Java-like (managed). "Sandboxing", in short.

Next ›   Last »
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9