Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!news.univ-angers.fr!news.univ-rennes1.fr!irisa.fr!news2.EUnet.fr!news.fnet.fr!ilog!news
From: davis@ilog.fr (Harley Davis)
Subject: Re: New paper, "Dylan Competitive Analysis" (draft)
In-Reply-To: duff@mitre.org's message of Thu, 02 Mar 1995 13:29:09 -0500
Message-ID: <DAVIS.95Mar3101100@passy.ilog.fr>
Lines: 24
Sender: news@ilog.fr
Nntp-Posting-Host: passy
Organization: Ilog SA, Gentilly, France
References: <3iqht0$aa6@narnia.ccs.neu.edu> <3ir29e$ls@cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu>
	<3ir73c$aqh@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
	<duff-0203951329090001@daved-mac.mitre.org>
Date: 03 Mar 1995 09:10:59 GMT


In article <duff-0203951329090001@daved-mac.mitre.org> duff@mitre.org (David A. Duff) writes:

   i noticed a few statements in the paper like, "In addition, the manually
   deleting objects as they die is considerably less efficient than the use
   of a copying GC, such as is used in Dylan,"   that seem to me to be just
   plain wrong.

Independently of whether or not a copying GC is faster than manual
memory management, I'm surprised that a paper defending the Dylan
language talks about a particular GC algorithm.  Is a copying GC
mandated by the Dylan spec, or is this paper talking specifically
about Apple Dylan?

-- Harley Davis
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davis                            net: davis@ilog.fr
ILOG S.A.                               tel: +33 1 46 63 66 66
2 Avenue Gallini, BP 85                fax: +33 1 46 63 15 82
94253 Gentilly Cedex, France            url: http://www.ilog.com/

           Ilog Talk information: info@ilog.com
