What I'm hoping is that you can have a GC that allows you to avoid all these issues without having to be super-careful all the time, while mitigating the pause issue by reducing the garbage using pools and similar techniques. My hypothesis is that most of the little allocations that game engines perform are homogenous enough that moving them to pools will be fairly easy. And that this will be sufficient to avoid big pauses. But we'll see how it plays out in practice when I get some hard data on big scenes.
Finally, memory management isn't the only reason I'd prefer to avoid C++. I'm particularly sick of long compile times (they could really kill you on a big project like Chrome), and among other things I believe that Go's concurrency model will prove a big improvement over C threading.
I can see why you'd want to get away from C++'s compile times, though they're a lot more manageable if you can avoid templates like the plague. Have you considered a coroutine library for C or C++? I'm using libco right now for my hobby game project and much like "goroutines" would, it's significantly improving the clarity of a lot of systems (though of course I don't get the "free" parallelism because it doesn't handle scheduling across threads or anything like that).
It includes particularly intriguing bits like "You can remove all on-stack RefPtr<X>'s. This is the biggest reason why Oilpan performs better than the current reference counting." I don't know whether that always holds true -- as of the middle of last year, I heard that they'd gotten to the point where most things perform roughly at parity, some worse, and some better. Keep in mind that this is an opt-in system -- if you don't use the smart pointers the GC knows about, it will ignore them (IOW, it's not some crazy conservative beast like the C++ Boehm collector). Also, my understanding is that, the vast majority of the time, Oilpan only runs when the event loop goes idle, which makes perfect sense for a browser, and has an obvious correlate in a game's simulation/rendering loop. I think they only walk the stack looking for pointers in rare cases.
It's not hard to imagine a hybrid world where you opt-in to GC'd pointers, but are free to use different allocators for performance-sensitive bits. This smells a little like Rust, but without the need to satisfy the lifetime checker thing.
Thanks for the pointer on libco. I'll definitely have a look at that. I've not written much C++ (apart from Chrome and a few odds and ends while at Google) in a long time, so it's quite probable I've missed some significant improvements on that front.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016648/Why-Erlang
EA uses it as well
https://github.com/Eonblast/Emysql
Blizzard / Activision / Demonware paper of Erlang
http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/395/Erlan...
As for Java, Deep Silver FISHLABS is using it
http://www.makinggames.biz/features/the-backend-development-...
I have lost my Making Games magazines, so I cannot remember of the other names.
I'm far from proving this assertion yet, but I believe that Go's memory model allows for a middle way that will avoid big GC pauses. As I touch on briefly in the original post, you can use Go's C-like value types and pointers to field/elements to avoid generating garbage for large numbers of homogenous objects (e.g., by implementing a simple pool allocator), just like you'd do in C[++] to avoid heap fragmentation.
I hope to get more actual data on how this works as I expand my prototype, and will do follow up posts as I learn more.