> on the other hand incremental GC IIRC doesn't fully GC every time it
> is used). GC being very frequent is also a Good Thing. However, if
> frequent GCs are non-incremental, then you get performance problems
> (performance has always been a major problem with languages that use
> GC).
Yes we know.
>
> As for the amount of memory used by dead datastructures between GCs,
> this depends on how frequent GCs are (or if GCs are incremental), and
> how many datastructures of what size are disposed of per unit time.
> If there is very frequent disposal of datastructures of considerable
> size, then this is a major factor. On the other hand, if there are
> few datastructures of little size disposed per unit time, then this is
> not very significant.
>
>
Performance isnt the issue here.
> As I said in my post in this thread in response to Ian Clarke, there
> could be protected/private memory leaks. This is essentially where
> references to objects are passed to other objects and are stored in
> protected/private members. If these references are not properly
> removed using a remove function or method, then these objects will
> remain in existance long after the main program has forgotten about
> them.
And as I said, there is no such bug in Java. You're thinking of other
languages with GC bolted on.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
