So how long before someone starts a reimplementation of the Linux kernel using D?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
D Language Still Showing Promise, Advancements
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View PostHave you watched the presentation I linked to? Because there it was suggested that it should be possible to define how the GC works, either by environment variables or compiler switches.
From my experience memory management on c++ has been a non issue for well over 10 years. The introduction of smart pointers and wider use of RAII seems to have pretty much killed this as an issue. And people still keep beating this drum.
Comment
-
Originally posted by plonoma View PostLove the concept of ranges and slices in D.
Although using a syntax with open interval for the upper limit comes over a little non-intuitive and strange to me.
Code:auto b = a[4..a.length]
Code:auto b = a[4..$]
Comment
-
Originally posted by bnolsen View PostHe also missed the complexity of implementing a compiler. Adding GC makes the job that much more difficult for someone trying to independently implement 'D'. Dramatically more difficult.
From my experience memory management on c++ has been a non issue for well over 10 years. The introduction of smart pointers and wider use of RAII seems to have pretty much killed this as an issue. And people still keep beating this drum.
Another part which you seem to forget is: ref-counting works really great if you know your codebase, and it works even worse in multi-core when atomics and updating the reference counting can be really a burden. Yes, today a lot of software is multi-core, what a surprise. And when GC go faster as get more cores, the ref-counting goes slower, so the 10 years problem, didn't get up with times of the multicore.
At last, there is a proof that C++ did not "solve" this issues for a long long time: there are tools of analyzing code and they find here and there a lot of memory errors (there are huge pieces of software which are full of accessing the address zero/NULL).Last edited by ciplogic; 20 June 2013, 02:29 PM.
Comment
-
Most people who use [] are used to math notation you learn in school from the inclusive and exclusive range: ]1,2[ means range from one to two not including one and two.
You say it's intuitive.
Can you make the difference between intuitive: truly easy to use and familiar: easy because familiar.
If you're used to C/C++, you're used to using length and stuff.
If I have multiple slices, they can have overlapping numbers although they don't overlap:
Code:auto piece1 = arrayB[0..5]; auto piece2 = arrayB[5..8]; auto piece3 = arrayB[8..12];
By glancing you would think that they overlap. This could lead to errors.
This just does not look right.
When beginning to use the inclusive form.
Using something else.
You could use an highestValidIndex:
Code:auto b = a[4..a.highestValidIndex]
Code:auto b = a[4..a.length-1]
Provide D with $ as the length-1/number of elements - 1/ highest valid index inside a slice, so rewritten:
Code:auto b = a[4..$]
It would be nice if the highest valid index would be the value as default.
that:Code:auto b = a[4..]
Code:auto b = a[4..a.highestValidIndex]
Last edited by plonoma; 20 June 2013, 02:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ciplogic View PostPeople are "beating this drum" because it is true. Ref-counting has issues. Many issues. It is expensive (both memory wise and CPU) and can have hidden leaks.
Another part which you seem to forget is: ref-counting works really great if you know your codebase, and it works even worse in multi-core when atomics and updating the reference counting can be really a burden. Yes, today a lot of software is multi-core, what a surprise. And when GC go faster as get more cores, the ref-counting goes slower, so the 10 years problem, didn't get up with times of the multicore.
At last, there is a proof that C++ did not "solve" this issues for a long long time: there are tools of analyzing code and they find here and there a lot of memory errors (there are huge pieces of software which are full of accessing the address zero/NULL).
Comment
-
Originally posted by bnolsen View PostCould have fooled me. I work on highly multithreaded c++ code for high throughput sensor processing (cameras, lidar, etc) which runs in windows and linux. We've only been able to test it with 32 cores on intel and 64 on amd though.
I've seen something similar happen once in database transactions where the power savings would cycle down the CPU poorly causing leaking code to run faster then good code since the RAM cycled up. But it's not limited to power management alone... As you can imagine debugging this was crazy but not nearly as crazy as demonstrating this in a minimal example to everyone.
Comment
-
Originally posted by plonoma View PostCode:auto piece1 = arrayB[0..5]; auto piece2 = arrayB[5..8]; auto piece3 = arrayB[8..12];
Code:auto add = countUntil(line[count..$], quote, sep, recordBreak); count += add; ans = line[0..count]; line = line[count..$];
Related: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4...ot-include-end
Comment
-
Originally posted by c117152 View PostEh, since in SMT especially the more active clock cycles you have, the less latency you get, it's quite possible you're hitting the sweet spot where the GC is processing the sensors data inefficiently thus raising the cycles causing the bus and ram latency to drop thus making the sensor input and even heap\stack memory operations go faster.
I've seen something similar happen once in database transactions where the power savings would cycle down the CPU poorly causing leaking code to run faster then good code since the RAM cycled up. But it's not limited to power management alone... As you can imagine debugging this was crazy but not nearly as crazy as demonstrating this in a minimal example to everyone.
Only using c++ with thread safe smart pointers (haven't switched to the std::shared_ptr just yet). The code is pretty heavily stack based and avoids inheritance except for some different paged file formats. I couldn't imagine how badly a GC language could easily trash what I'm doing. But I'm usually not into jacking around with tuning stuff like this, mostly its implementing algorithms and equations and occasionally debugging stupid race conditions like accidentally passing a temporary in a message.
Compared to all our competitors this stuff scales and runs quite fast.
Comment
Comment