To a first approximation, Racket places have that same property: different places do not share mutable data, so each place has its own GC.
More precisely, there is a shared space that is used to set up communication, but GCs there are rare and triggered only by creating new place channels. Passing a message, in particular, does *not* allocate in that shared space. At Sat, 13 Aug 2016 22:15:07 -0700 (PDT), Cary Cherng wrote: > Do Racket places suffer performance-wise in comparison to Erlang in that the > garbage collector cannot assume that everything in one thread is immutable > and > inaccessible to anyone else so that each thread can have its own garbage > collector. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
