Paul Rubin wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I disagree strongly with this assertion. It's not as efficient overall > > as other GC implementations, but it's not a case of "less efficient to > > do the same task". Reference counting buys you deterministic GC in the > > pretty common case where you do not have circular references--and > > determinism is very valuable to programmers. Other GCs be faster, but > > they don't actually accomplish the same task. > > GC is supposed to create the illusion that all objects stay around > forever. It releases unreachable objects since the application can't > tell whether those objects are gone or not.
No, that's not true of all GC implementations. Refcounting implementations give much nicer deterministic guarantees. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
