From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2907a68906511623
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Dr Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz>
Subject: Re: Idea for Ada 200x: Arguments that are procedures
Date: 1998/07/06
Message-ID: <35A038CE.4DEB@atlas.otago.ac.nz>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368776497
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6nh9f0$66i@netline.jpl.nasa.gov>
 <359D41CE.D3976FA6@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Otago
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Charles Hixson wrote:
> references, so Unchecked_DeAllocation always feels very dangerous.  On
> the third hand, Java's "lets garbage collect EVERYTHING" seems
> excessive, and has GOT to be a part of what slows Java down.

Yes and no.  Java's object creation times (using Sun's JDK on a SPARC)
are _huge_ compared with other operations, and _way_ bigger than object
creation in for example Smalltalk, which also has quasi-parallel OOP.
One of the Erlang people pointed out to me that existing Java systems
have a single shared heap instead of a per-thread heap, so that object
creation has to involve locking, but that can't be the whole story.