Re: Garbage collection problems



In article <23d9f$474170a4$ca8010a3$31350@xxxxxxxxxx>, cr88192
<cr88192@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Monday 19 Nov 2007 4:44 pm:


"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Hq2dnc7Xt8Nz_NzanZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
Chris Dollin said:

<snip>

I am a hedgehog of very little brain, and as well as long words
bothering me, I only have so much brain-power to give to my code; if
I can give up a significant part of store-management worries to the
language /at an acceptable price/, whizzo! I'm all for it, it leaves
me free to attend to other, less automatable, parts of program
design.

Sure, and I agree - but I remain unconvinced that it is available /at
an acceptable price/.

so, which is more expensive?
GC, or OpenGL?...

<snip>

What may be "an acceptable price" in some situations may not be
acceptable in others. Obviously C is still used to some extent on the
Desktop and hence programmers for that domain might consider a
Standardised GC as helping to "close the gap" between C and it's
more "Desktop ubiquitous" cousins. Many Desktop programmers don't
want/like to "go the whole hog" and use massive platforms like Java
and .NET. At the same time, some of them may wish for some of the
conveniences of those languages Standardised in C.

On the other hand it looks more likely that a GC would be Standardised
for C++ sooner than for C, so such developers might want to consider
C++. It provides all the "heavy ammunition" that C has, and also most
of the higher level language constructs and facilities of platforms
like Java and .NET. What it lacks, of course, is a massive standardised
code library (like in Java), but Boost can ease matters here.

.