Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo

[David Tolpin <dvd@davidashen.net>]

> any Java i've ever seen is that most storage is reclaimed by

Are there any comparable programs that can show that limbo
takes much less memory than Java?

> the reference counter, because many common structures
> are not, in fact, cyclic.  DAGs by definition are not cyclic.
> when programming (even on large machines)
> it is good discipline (as Wirth observed) not to create the
> garbage in the first place.  that also means that the incremental
> garbage collector can be less obtrusive.

In Wirth's source codes of Oberon System there are many cyclic
structures relying on mark'n'sweep garbage collector implemented
in the system. And windows are closed timely.

> >>is there any other reason reference loops are not very common amongs
> >>limbo programmers besides limitations of the garbage collector?
>
> oh for heaven's sake.  i must not be explaining this very well.
> there is no [inherent] `limitation of the garbage collector'.
> it garbage collects arbitrary rubbish just fine.  

How are resources (time, space and delay) compared for cyclic and
acyclic structures? For example, a cyclic and acyclic list with
the same data?

> the reference counted
> side does, however, reclaim storage the very instant the data becomes rubbish,
> which must certainly yield a smaller working set than any garbage collector
> scheme that has one always trundling along later.

It is a wrong assumption that mark'n'sweep requires staged garbage
collection. Why don't you just use propagating markers? It is marginally
complex algorithmically, instantly throws away rubbish and does not
make a difference between cyclic and acyclic data structures.

David