russhy 
Posted in reply to H. S. Teoh
| On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 02:32:21 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:57:23AM +0000, zjh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 01:32:50 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>
>> Can I make full use of the `STD` library without garbage collection?
>> If this is achieved, it can be advertised everywhere.
>> ,Then why not remove `GC` on the home page?.
>
> Why bend over backwards to please the GC-phobic crowd? They've already made up their minds, there's no convincing them.
>
> Having a GC IME is an extremely powerful thing, contrary to what the GC haters will tell you. It frees up your APIs from being littered with memory-management minutiae. It makes your APIs clean, refactorable, and maintainable. Easy to use. It makes your code clean. You get to make progress in your problem domain instead of wasting 75% of your brain power thinking about memory management at every step. You save countless hours writing manual memory management code, and countless more hours debugging said code.
>
> And in D, you also get to choose to use manual memory management in performance bottlenecks *where it actually matters*. 90% of application code is not on the hot path, it's a completely waste of effort to meticulously manage memory in such code, when you could be focusing your efforts on the 10% hot path where 90% of the performance gains are made.
>
> Writing code without a GC is wasteful of programmer time, which equals to wasting money paying programmers to do something that should have been done in 10% of the time, leaving the rest of the time to work on things that actually matter, like implementing features and making progress in your problem domain. You spend tons of wages paying said programmers to debug memory-related bugs, which are notorious to be extremely hard to find and require a lot of time, when these wages could have been used to pay them to implement new features and drive your business forward. *And* you waste tons of wages paying them to maintain code that's needlessly complex due to having to manually manage memory all the time. It takes a lot of time and effort to maintain such code, time that could have been diverted for more useful work had a GC been in place.
>
> And you know what? In spite of all this time and effort, programmers get it wrong anyway -- typical C code is full of memory leaks, pointer bugs, and buffer overflows. Most of them are latent and only trigger in obscure environments and unusual inputs, and so lie undiscovered, waiting for the day it suddenly explodes on a customer's production environment. Or somebody comes up with a security exploit...
>
> With a GC, you instantly eliminate 90% of these problems. Only 10% of the time, you actually need to manually manage memory -- in inner loops and hot paths where it actually matters.
>
> GC phobia is completely irrational and I don't see why we should bend over backwards to please that crowd.
>
>
> T
I can't believe this is what still being debated, yet again..
--
D's GC:
- doesn't scale, the more pointers to scan the slower the collection is
- stop the entire world whenever a collection happen
- no R&D
What's your use case with this?
And you want to attract what kind of people? in a cloud native world with such GC? what kind of people will you attract if you are doing worse than NodeJS's GC? scripters? is that what D is? a language for scripters? want to replace BASH, is that it?
--
You complain about @nogc being what the "gc phobic" people wanted, and yet they didn't come?
People don't want tags, they want a platform where they can use D, not "annotated" D
--
-betterC failed to bring C/C++ people?
Yeah, i mean..
```D
struct Test
{
float[32] data;
}
extern (C) int main()
{
Test b;
Test c;
bool r = b == c;
return 0;
}
```
this code doesn't compile in -betterC, who will you attract if such basic and common code doesn't work?
also it sounds like it is some bone you give to a dog so he can play and you relax in peace, not a good message
fragmentation, that's what you get
--
GO became ultra popular thanks to **its** GC and its applications, not because **of a** GC, big difference ;)
--
bandaid solutions doesn't attract people, saying "we have a no GC story at home" BUT you have to do X, Y, Z, and give up on A, B, C is not what the people wanted and that you gave the "@nogc tag" and the "non functioning -betterc"
they want what Rust provide, a modern system programming language
they want what Zig provide, a modern system programming language
they want what Odin provide, a modern system programming language
they want what Jai provide, a modern system programming language
--
Don't expect those people to want a modern Java alternative
Because GO already took that role, something D could have done, and yet didn't, you have a GC, why it failed? why people complained about a GC in D? but not a GC in GO?, this is the message you REFUSE to hear
--
There are no GC-phobia, there is a poor's man GC phobia!, big difference
Instead of investing billions into a competitive GC, with nobody wants to do, including the GC advocators, let's adopt the Allocator aware mindset, it's much cheaper, and much more effective ;)
|
Permalink
Reply
