From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Tolpin Message-Id: <200403020851.i228plJa071683@adat.davidashen.net> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo In-Reply-To: <412645f8ec82b5c83ff0eee114c5cadf@terzarima.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:51:47 +0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0a97f7c2-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > 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