> We have multiple open-source pauseleses miracles right there before our eyes

Is this meaningfully true in a practical sense? I've been writing code with soft real-time requirements and I don't think your notion of "pauseless" suffices. And if these miracles are open-source and right before our eyes, why do languages like Crystal and D still use Boehm?

▲

gomoboo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

D uses a homegrown GC not Boehm: - https://dlang.org/spec/garbage.html - https://dlang.org/blog/2017/03/20/dont-fear-the-reaper/

▲

quotemstr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The charitable explanation is the authors lack the time to rebase onto something more modern.

▲

platinumrad 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You seem to have a very low opinion of other people. If these miraculous collectors are so generally applicable, why are very smart people putting effort into things like Perseus?

▲

quotemstr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Smart, honest people can have sincere and earnest disagreements. I believe the manual-memory-management people are mistaken. That's not to say they're stupid: it means I believe they're going down the wrong path, as smart people have done since time immemorial. I wish them all the best. That said, I must wonder what other innovations they reject if they insist that GC is unacceptable.

▲

lstodd an hour ago | parent [-]

We insist that GC is unacceptable only because we insist that uncontrollable latency is unacceptable.

	▲	LoganDark an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The entire concept of a pauseless GC is that you have no uncontrollable latency. The GC can run on a background thread with zero stop-the-world. Of course, this assumes you're in a preemptive environment with access to other threads, etc.