On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 10:04:44 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

I only care about computer science context.

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 11:14:39 UTC, russhy wrote:

And that is a good reason to compartmentalize the GC so that it only affects one task on one thread if it kicks in. Hopefully one can write code that is segmented into many smaller tasks that bypass collection altogheter. And if you can't, then write a GC-less task.

Anyway, dedicated specialized GCs are not relevant to the discussion. Chrome also has a GC, again, it is specialized and not relevant.

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 16:28:46 UTC, russhy wrote:

U can take the gc away from me from my dead cold hands.

-Alex

On Wednesday, 21 April 2021 at 21:47:10 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

The GC will remain, but could be improved.

On Tuesday, 20 April 2021 at 16:44:01 UTC, russhy wrote:

@safe @system @pure @nogc @noreturn @help @nothrow void

IMO, it's the lack of attribute inference that's the problem not the (implicit) presence of attributes.

On Sunday, 25 April 2021 at 09:48:15 UTC, Imperatorn wrote:

That is a very very very very very bad decision

That is one of the reason i decide to stay away from std and stick to core.stdc, and that is what i recommend everytime i mention D to people

That is also one of the reason i limit D for my new projects and keep an eye for new languages that focuses on allocators first

Stay the hell out of std, and stay the hell out of the GC, if you want to get started with D

Mistakes mistakes mistakes, that is what people do, bloat bloat bloat, they is what people do

And as expected, the top level people remains silent, they let some people destroy this beautiful language that is D

Ignoring decade of complains about the GC, and saying after decades "we need to improve the GC", as if nobody made the complain

Blind, refuse to listen to feedback, that's what D foundation

Lack of public roadmap is the evidence of everything

Leadership? where?

C'mon Walter, Atila, Andrei, let us know what do you think about the GC story?

You are responsible of it, c'mon react!

You guys are chasing Java, Go ate your cake with better GC

Now you figured you'd also chase C++, but Rust ate your cake too

Now you figured you should stick to chasing Java, with a shitty GC that doesn't scale

Without even tooling to analyses heap memory sanely, something at least Java provides out of the box

"the gc will remain", but not D

On Sunday, 25 April 2021 at 10:39:01 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:

@safe @system @pure @nogc @noreturn @help @nothrow void

This is none of that, it's people bloating the language

Language should stay simple, and people can come up with what ever library they want

If people love bloat, they should keep it in their own libraries and let the language simple

GC is perfect example of this, it should have been a library

On Sunday, 25 April 2021 at 17:33:06 UTC, russhy wrote:

Hmm, some partly valid points, but I think the strength D has is its plasticity.

Let's put it like this, what should the "GC-lovers" do without the GC? How do you please everyone?

The only solution I see is provide choice, which I think D does.

On Sunday, 25 April 2021 at 17:35:36 UTC, russhy wrote:

@safe @system @pure @nogc @noreturn @help @nothrow void

We already have zig and rust, adding yet another fancy slick no GC landuage is dead end.
Take it from D and there is no point to stay here.
For my needs basically C# is a next step from D, it can call C++ and stuff just not as that friendly like D and requires more boilerplate, but again that could be automated.

So please stop your no-GC whine. People already heard you, more than once too.

Same defeatist mentality i keep reading here, this is not what D need

I will never stop fighting for D from the people who wants to ruin it with more GC