On 10 February 2014 19:17, Francesco Cattoglio <francesco.cattoglio@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 10 February 2014 at 08:58:29 UTC, Manu wrote:

If we wanted to spend that time+manpower (read, money & overtime/sanity) on
bullshit like that, we have no reason to adopt D; we already have C/C++,
and we already have decades of experience mitigating that nightmare.
The point is, we are REALLY sick of it. Why would we sign up to replace it
with more of the same thing.

What I meant: you can't get a language that performs at its best without doing your homework. Ideal performance requires time and money, no matter the tools. This doesn't mean I expect you to do the same amount of work you have to do in C++.
Perhaps I expressed myself in a bad way, so here is a second try at that: I expect only simpler games to run at ideal speed without efforts. "Simple" here doesn't mean "generic 2D platformer", it should be interpreted as "not cutting edge". If you really need to squeeze every bit of performance, you can't only rely on automation.

Fair enough, and I'd say you're right. D will not change the careful application of region allocators or pools or any number of tightly controlled, context-specific allocation patterns.

But D has a lot of language features that allocate; closures, strings, concatenation, AAs, 3rd party libraries that also allocate on your behalf, and not ALL your code should have to apply carefully controlled allocation patterns. The existing GC is plainly unacceptable, but some form of GC must be present, otherwise D doesn't work.

GC backed ARC is a realistic option as far as I can tell, and it's the only one I've ever heard that ticks all the boxes, and would seem to satisfy everyone in an acceptable way (ie, no additional complexity for 'don't care' users).

I'm not married to it by any means, but it seems to be the only horse in the race. I haven't heard any other options that tick all the boxes.