From: P.H.Welch (P.H.Welch_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: 2000-09-22 13:30:06
< ... forwarding from Lawrence Dickson ... >
===========================================================================
From: tjoccam_at_crash.cts.com (Lawrence Dickson)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:26:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: M_Boosten <mboosten_at_best.ms.philips.com>
"Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"" (Sep 22, 1:02pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 1995-03-03)
To: M_Boosten <mboosten_at_best.ms.philips.com>, java-threads_at_ukc.ac.uk,
occam-com_at_ukc.ac.uk
Subject: Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"
On Sep 22, 1:02pm, M_Boosten wrote:
} Subject: Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"
} Hi,
}
} In my opinion, garbage collection is an efficiency mechanism.
} I think you can proof that without garbage collection you can
} always use at least 50% of the computer's memory.
} Memory for applications that need dynamic memory management
} (typically PCs/workstations) is cheap.
}
} Conclusion (assuming I remembered correctly that the proof can be done):
} if you are not bothered with performance, use a garbage collector,
} and save on memory budget, use virtual memory as well.
}
} if you are bothered with performance, buy twice as much memory, and
} do not use a garbage collector, nor virtual memory. Simply, use
} enough memory.
}
} Anyone agrees?
}
} Marcel
}
}-- End of excerpt from M_Boosten
Yes, I agree...
The temptation to attach every bell and whistle is a strong one.
But that problem becomes an opportunity when you remember that
implies that the niche of clean, understandable simplicity is
almost unoccupied.
Larry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 on 2004-10-31 20:03:54 GMT
© Copyright WoTUG
All rights reserved