From: Dimonax <dimonax@nospam.net>
Subject: Re: Immutable and Transient Objects and GC?
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:50:58 GMT
Date: 2009-03-18T21:50:58+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <61ewl.12556$hc1.5538@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 0fb0ee0b-b5af-45af-b93c-fc6e931930fd@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:32:55 -0700, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> In other words, if the given object *happens* to be immutable as a
> result of the problem analysis and this fact can help with concurrency,
> then it is a worthy coincidence; but when immutability of objects is
> *imposed* in order to solve some unrelated concurrency (or other)
> issues, then it is just a design distortion.
Good point.
However, what about Transient Objects, which seem to be pretty much the
inverse of Immutable Objects. Ala Forth
They make sense for a lot of data structures, particulary sequential
structures like stacks, queues, etc...
Thier property of being immediately freed upon thier first access means
that I can make a lot of optimizations that arent available to regular
data types.
Freejack
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-18 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-18 20:07 Immutable and Transient Objects and GC? Dimonax
2009-03-18 21:32 ` Maciej Sobczak
2009-03-18 21:50 ` Dimonax [this message]
2009-03-19 8:14 ` Maciej Sobczak
2009-03-19 19:23 ` Dimonax
2009-03-19 19:57 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox