On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 06:35:25 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

There is already Volt language, and Odin and Zig languages which is very D inspired and "simple" compared to D, there is a lot to choose from.
But Take GC from D and you get C2 language (guess where it is now? oh I've heard they given up and started C3 language which is even better than C2, fantastic!), and there was even more "simple" C-- (C minus minus) language, but can you guess where it is now?
Or maybe he want to repeat Python 2 vs 3 story? That was almost killed entire language. D just can't afford switching direction amid its course. But what if this really necessary? Ok, why not, just put it under a new name. But don't touch the original.

That guy teaches us about how bad GC is and provides nonsensical examples of how brave developers avoid GC by all means because of just how evil it is, meanwhile Unity have been working just fine on mobile for 10+ years, and UE4 works just fine (CPU performance wise) on average 4 years old smartphone.

I also like how he hijacked the thread and expects answers from Walter and Andrey who never showed up in the thread. He demands from them make something because he wanted it.
That's definitely not going to work.

If he is so serious about reducing GC dependency he could probably start patching phobos with no-GC functionality to be on par, that would be at least useful, but in the long run it will just add clutter, technical debt and bloat(omg!).
To make phobos usable with @nogc it would need some serious rethinking, research and planning. It is not just "remove GC" and done, this will require adding monads and stuff, pattern matching, and more. The result will probably end up look like Rust too.

Or maybe he want to repeat Python 2 vs 3 story? That was almost killed entire language.

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 13:40:18 UTC, russhy wrote:

This is just pure GC phobia at this point of time.

-Alex

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 13:43:21 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:

Not, i never said GC is useless, i said the language shouldn't expect a GC to exists, it should ask you to provide what ever allocation scheme you need for the task
That is just pure nonsense. Having the gc built into the language have noticeable benefits.

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 09:22:12 UTC, evilrat wrote:

Again, this shows how little you know

UE4 GC is fine if you make a hello world, ask every studios what they have to do to workaround the GC, they wish it didn't exist, and Epic is working on ditching the GC with their upcoming data oriented stack, just like Unity is working on ditching the GC with their HPC#/Burst solutions

[...]

But we have also a longer term idea in the future to "combine" Burst+IL2CPP effort and to push for the best .NET AOT experience for Unity apps. This AOT solution could be considered as a Tiered level 4 compilation compatible with CoreCLR. But before going there, we will have quite some work ahead, as highlighted by @JoshPeterson in the original post above.

LOL, wonder how it works fine on mobile? by avoiding the GC and doing manual memory management (object pooling -- aka custom allocators)

Woawoawoa, who would have thought that Unity recomands to avoid the GC in order to gain stable perf on device constrained devices, woawoaw

Same goes for Unreal

What have you done with D, other than cli tools?

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 13:51:29 UTC, russhy wrote:

Android seems to be doing just fine with its 80% world wide market share.

And ChromeOS isn't doing badly in US school market.

On Monday, 26 April 2021 at 13:44:36 UTC, russhy wrote:

From "Unity Future .NET Development Status"

https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-future-net-development-status.1092205/#post-7035031

You guys never made a game or a game engine and you are telling me GC is fine