Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.java
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!in2.uu.net!nntp.cadence.com!news
From: Simon Kinahan <simonk>
Subject: Re: Garbage collection cost (was Re: Parenthesized syntax challenge)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Message-ID: <DGJp8o.7nF@Cadence.COM>
Sender: news@Cadence.COM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Cadence NVision
References: <44aa9a$j5h@miso.cs.uq.edu.au> <LUDEMANN.95Oct6140930@expernet26.expernet.com> <DGApp8.J41@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <MAD.95Oct13123618@tanzanite.math.keio.ac.jp> <45ksdk$7gr@jive.cs.utexas.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:21:59 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1N (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3 sun4c)
X-Url: news:45ksdk$7gr@jive.cs.utexas.edu
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.dylan:5422 comp.lang.lisp:19530 comp.lang.java:1719

wilson@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Wilson) wrote:

>For more info, you might see followups that made it to some of the three
>newsgroups the original post went to (but not all), and a recent thread
>in comp.lang.scheme.  Hans Boehm has clearly argued (again) that the
>asymptotic arguments about GC cost (and about relative costs of copying
>vs. non-copying GC) just don't wash.  He (and I) have repeatedly tried
>to kill all of these myths, but they're very hardy memes.  There are
>some similar misunderstandings of generational GC issues.

I agree that 'in practice' GC is not faster. However mathematically
a copying GC program is faster asymptoptically than its malloc/free
equivalent. It is not a myth jsut people mistaking maths for reality :-)

Simon.

-- 
     1

