On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Well, there's the Perl 5 reference counting solution. In normal cases
> DESTROY is called as soon as it can be. Of course we're all anxious to
> get into the leaky GC boat with Java and C# because we've heard it's
> faster. I wonder how fast it is when
> You still need to malloc() your memory; however I realize that the
> allocator can be *really* fast here. But still, you give a lot of the
> gain back during the mark-and-sweep phase, especially if you also
> move/compact the memory.
As you said, the allocator can be really fast. Most advanced
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:04:20 -0700, Hong Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Normally, GC is more efficient than ref count, since you will have many
>advanced gc algorith to choose and don't have to pay malloc overhead.
You still need to malloc() your memory; however I realize that the
allocator c
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:35:34 -0700, Damien Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:07:03PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
>> Well, there's the Perl 5 reference counting solution. In normal cases
>> DESTROY is called as soon as it can be. Of course we're all anxious to
>> get into
> I don't think speed is where the interest is coming from. GC should fix
> common memory problems, such as the nasty circular references issue that
has
> caught all of us at some time.
Normally, GC is more efficient than ref count, since you will have many
advanced gc algorith to choose and don'
Sam Tregar wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> > The answer used in .NET is to have a dispose() method (which is not a
> > special name--just an informal standard) that the class user calls
manually
> > to clean up resources. It's not an ideal solution but there doesn't seem
to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:07:03PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Well, there's the Perl 5 reference counting solution. In normal cases
> DESTROY is called as soon as it can be. Of course we're all anxious to
> get into the leaky GC boat with Java and C# because we've heard it's
> faster. I wonder
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:07:03 -0400 (EDT), Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
>> The answer used in .NET is to have a dispose() method (which is not a
>> special name--just an informal standard) that the class user calls manually
>> to clean up resou
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> The answer used in .NET is to have a dispose() method (which is not a
> special name--just an informal standard) that the class user calls manually
> to clean up resources. It's not an ideal solution but there doesn't seem to
> be many other practical o
Hong Zhang wrote:
> Most of finalization is used to deal with external resource, such as open
> file, socket, window. You don't really want to depend on finalization,
> since it is very likely run out of default file descriptor limit before
> the finalization kicks in. The rule of thumb is to let
10 matches
Mail list logo
