Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!netcom9!gunter
From: gunter@netcom9.netcom.com (Mike Gunter)
Subject: Re: (debunk-myth '(debunk-myth '(<-efficient gc malloc/free)))
In-Reply-To: gunter@netcom9.netcom.com's message of Thu, 26 Oct 1995 16:10:25 GMT
Message-ID: <GUNTER.95Oct26100524@netcom9.netcom.com>
Sender: gunter@netcom9.netcom.com
Organization: NETCOM On-line services
References: <QOBI.95Oct22061418@qobi.ai> <rzqpwfob5v9.fsf@dlpx1.dl.ac.uk>
	<LTH.95Oct23083525@blackrabbit.cs.uoregon.edu>
	<1995Oct25.100928.7396@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 17:05:24 GMT
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.dylan:5626 comp.lang.functional:6594 comp.lang.scheme:14141


   Interestingly, I've heard that generational collectors are not well-suited
   to lazy languages for this reason.  Namely, there are many such assignments
   as suspensions (futures, delays, etc.) are resolved.  Same principle for
   graph reduction as redexes are overwritten with results.

   Unfortunately, I can't supply a reference for this.  Does anyone else
   have any anecdotal evidence?


Author: Patrick M.  Sansom and Simon L.  Peyton Jones
Title: "Generation garbage collection for Haskell
Pubn: ~Functional Programming Languages and Computer Architecture, Copenhagen, June 1993~
Date: March 1993
Available from http://www.dcs.glasgow.ac.uk/fp/paper_abstracts.html.

They mention the claim that generational collectors are poorly suited
to lazy languages and refute it.

	mike gunter

P.S. I've attempted to cancel the similiar article I wrote which
contains an error.  I am sorry if you have received both it and this.

