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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-03 14:59:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Starner Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity. (Debian GNU/Linux)) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <87r7v5zao0.fsf@insalien.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:59:14 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.69.70 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1081033154 12.72.69.70 (Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:59:14 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:59:14 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6733 Date: 2004-04-03T22:59:14+00:00 List-Id: On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 11:13:35 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote: > This turned out not to work that well; there have been large > performance and memory footprint concerns in GCC because of GC. There have been large performance concerns in GCC, but I'm unaware of them being related to GC, and I don't think many of the memory footprint concerns are related, either. > Linus > Torvalds recommends reference counting as a better, more predictable > and more efficient mechanism. Coming from a C programmer, that's unsurprising. And within a kernel, where you need tightly controlled finalization and tight real-time restrictions, reference counting is often better. But GCC doesn't need those; and GC is sometimes more efficient than reference counting, because GC doesn't have to change an object (and possibly bring a page into memory) every time a new reference is made; the GC costs are clustered at collection time.