> the tradeoffs of ORC and availability of manual memory management
For those not familiar with the language, Nim only uses GC for `seq` (dynamically sized lists like c++ vectors), `string`, and types declared with `ref`.
Everything else is a stack allocated value type, or as noted in the parent, you can manually manage with pointers.
> won't materially harm hard-realtime systems use-cases in practice
I think this is true. I already find myself rarely using GC when writing Nim, but when you want it, it's nice yet painless.
Later they compare no async, and ORC with async and find that it's "only a few ms slower than the RPC calls running with ARC and no async."
While this example may not be the hardest of realtime, it does show that ORC competes with manual approaches to memory management in constrained environments.
For those not familiar with the language, Nim only uses GC for `seq` (dynamically sized lists like c++ vectors), `string`, and types declared with `ref`.
Everything else is a stack allocated value type, or as noted in the parent, you can manually manage with pointers.
> won't materially harm hard-realtime systems use-cases in practice
I think this is true. I already find myself rarely using GC when writing Nim, but when you want it, it's nice yet painless.
Here someone is embedding an async messagepack/JSON RPC on an ESP32: https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/6916
Later they compare no async, and ORC with async and find that it's "only a few ms slower than the RPC calls running with ARC and no async."
While this example may not be the hardest of realtime, it does show that ORC competes with manual approaches to memory management in constrained environments.