Re: Do garbage collected languages need destructors?
From: Robert Klemme (bob.news_at_gmx.net)
Date: 10/29/03
- Next message: Shayne Wissler: "Re: Naive, possibly silly question"
- Previous message: Thomas G. Marshall: "Re: Naive, possibly silly question"
- In reply to: Simon Strandgaard: "Re: Do garbage collected languages need destructors?"
- Next in thread: Dave Harris: "Re: Do garbage collected languages need destructors?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:18:22 +0100
"Simon Strandgaard" <qj5nd7l02@sneakemail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:pan.2003.10.29.14.00.29.359372@sneakemail.com...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:21:51 +0100, Ulf Wendel wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need some input on a simple question:
> > Do garbage collected languages need destructors?
>
> No destructors isn't necessary.
> For instance the Ruby language doesn't have destructors.
Same for Java. Both do have finalizers which might or might not be called
during GC. There are some subtle anomalies in cases the finalizer stores
a reference to the current instance somewhere thus making it reachable
again...
Google yields quite good results:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22garbage+collection%22+destructor+finalizer
Regards
robert
- Next message: Shayne Wissler: "Re: Naive, possibly silly question"
- Previous message: Thomas G. Marshall: "Re: Naive, possibly silly question"
- In reply to: Simon Strandgaard: "Re: Do garbage collected languages need destructors?"
- Next in thread: Dave Harris: "Re: Do garbage collected languages need destructors?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
