Re: GC performance - GC fragility

Jolyon Smith wrote:
In article <47aa1504$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bob Dawson says...
[...]

It's a question of risk vs benefit.

The benefit of a GC to any specific app is indeterminate and often not a

I think a GC makes many things quite simple, at least the .NET one in combination with the CLR / CTS.

For example returning an object from a dll function. Who owns the object ? With a GC you don't have to care.

Passing an object to another thread. Besides concurrency you don't have to care about which thread owns the object.

In native languages only one solution (for the problems above) comes to my mind: reference counting. But there is no common standard under Windows for reference counting, besides COM.

Language interoperability is way more easier in .NET as in native languages. Without a GC IMHO it wouldn't be that simple.

benefit at all or a benefit that isn't as great as first thought or promised and which comes with a penalty the extent of which you cannot quantify until it's too late to do anything about.

Well, IMHO you get benefits, but I agree - you don't get them for free - you still have to care about memory management and GC generations.

Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GC performance - GC fragility
    ... A GC might make you think you don't have to care but you almost certainly DO. ... There's IMHO only one rational solution in native languages - reference counting. ... Store an object (pointer) in 10 different lists, so that each list holds the same pointer to the same object. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: ESL Chauvinism
    ... are the native languages of the ESL posters really ... Certainly, plenty of native speakers of English have similar prejudices, ... and rejecting that "could care less" means the ... questions raise, often things that we so take for granted that it is a ...
    (alt.usage.english)