From: David Tolpin <dvd@davidashen.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:58:03 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200403020658.i226w3An070941@adat.davidashen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f62d09b11d1f097b3f4b5f6b70b65ea5@proxima.alt.za>
> The Inferno/Java paper (somewhere on the web site, but likely also in
> the Plan 9 distribution) covers it rather nicely.
Google brings inexistent link.
Object not found
The object /inferno/infernojava.html does not exist on this server.
I've found an article on similar subject, namely
http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/rob/hotchips.html
The only claim I have found is that reference counting + coloring
is better than mark'n'sweep. Given that Java's GC is not mark'n'sweep
for a long time already, and the performance problems related to
memory management are insignificant since the release of HotSpot,
are there any other advantages of limbo over Java?
Besides, are there measured comparisons of Java and Limbo in the
area of memory usage and GC performance? My experience with implementing
GC in virtual machines is that reference-counting+graph coloring can
easily result in slower execution than mark'n'sweep.
David Tolpin
next parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-02 6:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <f62d09b11d1f097b3f4b5f6b70b65ea5@proxima.alt.za>
2004-03-02 6:58 ` David Tolpin [this message]
2004-03-02 7:06 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 7:08 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 7:14 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 7:30 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 7:37 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 7:48 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 9:50 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 20:50 ` Andrew Simmons
2004-03-02 20:56 ` matt
2004-03-02 20:57 ` ron minnich
2004-03-02 12:44 ` Bruce Ellis
2004-03-02 7:50 ` lucio
2004-03-02 7:56 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 8:12 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-03-02 8:12 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 8:45 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-03-02 8:51 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 9:06 ` David Presotto
2004-03-02 9:14 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 9:26 ` Charles Forsyth
2004-03-02 15:04 ` rog
2004-03-02 15:12 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 16:03 ` C H Forsyth
2004-03-02 16:06 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 16:24 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 16:35 ` C H Forsyth
2004-03-02 17:18 ` andrey mirtchovski
2004-03-02 12:39 ` Bruce Ellis
2004-03-02 8:02 David Presotto
2004-03-02 8:20 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 8:55 ` David Presotto
2004-03-02 9:20 ` Rob Pike
[not found] <918d202b192f1bcb8dd969285010a329@proxima.alt.za>
2004-03-02 8:37 ` David Tolpin
[not found] <d02d8014f5f4b58c6863ec7a3cd652ee@proxima.alt.za>
2004-03-02 9:07 ` David Tolpin
2004-03-02 10:04 ` lucio
2004-03-02 10:08 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 11:35 ` matt
2004-03-02 18:38 ` boyd, rounin
2004-03-02 19:03 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 19:10 ` rog
2004-03-02 19:08 ` Fco.J.Ballesteros
2004-03-02 15:03 rog
2004-03-03 7:21 YAMANASHI Takeshi
2004-03-03 7:29 ` Kenji Okamoto
2004-03-03 7:31 ` Kenji Okamoto
2004-03-03 7:37 YAMANASHI Takeshi
2004-03-03 12:29 ` boyd, rounin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200403020658.i226w3An070941@adat.davidashen.net \
--to=dvd@davidashen.net \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).