On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:15 AM, felix winkelmann <bunny...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can understand that conservative GC is seen as a problem (it is > by definition not reliable), but there are many GC strategies and > a good, precise automatic memory manager that is safe for space > complexity will actually use less storage (even if performing more > allocations) than manual memory management, unless the latter > is insanely tuned.
Not to start a large argument as I do see great benefits of GC, but as a programmer who has been manually managing memory for many years, I've hardly ever seen a circumstance where on average a GC'd environment will use less storage, and the closer it gets, the more often it needs to do collections. I figure it just terns out that that the metric of 'insanely tuned' becomes default for those of us who work in situations where it matters a lot. Alas, I feel we are getting farther from really discovering why Apple has chosen to eliminate GC from the IPhone SDK, considering they use a precise generational collector, the only real problem that remains is the lack of copying. Alas, I don't think any of this should prevent any of us from using Chicken without a collector on the IPhone. Indy _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
