At 4:33 PM +0000 5/27/02, "Peter Gibbs" (via RT) wrote:
>Dan's suggestion of reversing the logic of
>DOD runs would work for the pure infant mortality situation (except
>perhaps for the odd pathological op), but it still leaves problems
>with the dependency of buffer memory collection on prior dead object
>detection.
That dependency, as such, is in there on purpose, and it's not really
a problem. It's a win with mutable strings, something we don't take
as much advantage of as we should.
>These changes do cause a slight performance degradation, but I believe it is
>worth it for the overall simplification of transparent protection of the
>newborn.
Unfortunately I don't. I'm willing to live with a performance
degredation in those spots where it's truly necessary, but only
there. The performance hit has to be localized to those places where
infant mortality is actually a problem. Those spots are currently
reasonably rare, and I'm not sure that the hoops we're building to
jump through (and I'm as guilty as anyone) are worth it.
>Performance can only be a secondary goal, after correct behaviour.
But performance has to be given up as grudgingly as possible.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
