Re: Languages don't matter. A mathematical refutation

[Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> GC overhead (and the corresponding allocation overhead) would be a lot
> more than the combination of free chaining and static allocation ...

GC doesn't use that much of the runtime of typical programs in GC'd
languages, and the cpu overhead can be made quite small with
generational gc's.  There is no allocation overhead (just bump a
pointer) and no overhead of freeing garbage.  There is some overhead
from tracing and copying the recently created live data (minor
collections, the amount of data touched is usually small) and occasional
more expensive major collections (they also trace older data).  This
does have a cost in memory footprint but the cpu load isn't that big.

http://cowlark.com/2014-04-27-ada/index.html says:

  Personally, I think that the original Ada designers wanted a garbage
  collector --- a relaxed-rules Ada with closures, inline maps, the
  ability to have range<> arrays in structures, variable-length strings
  etc would be totally epic. Unfortunately not only does such a thing
  not exist, but I have yet to find an implementation that even has a
  garbage collector. Go figure.

which I thought was interesting.