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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!homer!news.glorb.com!news-spur1.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps90.POSTED!023a3d7c!not-for-mail
Sender: blaak@METROID
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
References: <1169636785.504223.139630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <SJudnfsXuZsDLyrYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com> <45b8361a_5@news.bluewin.ch>
 <m7ejpj5u9t.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <u7iv8o16m.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <3pejpgfbki.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <epkcru$fk2$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <njirepncb0.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eppn6r$m41$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <vwbqkffq94.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eputhf$p8u$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <dzsldoachu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eq6v5b$bsb$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <l5iregra8a.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eq9gv3$dre$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <il64aftsq7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eqa2j8$mfu$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <uveiftbyu.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1ic9j6bmbl0ik.gvgqhl1ixvxk$.dlg@40tude.net> <eqc0ki$e2d$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <1v9qweobb6xei.z5hdupxed63u.dlg@40tude.net> <eqhanb$kgj$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
From: Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Organization: The Transcend
Message-ID: <uejoz1a4x.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:03:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.66.252.228
X-Trace: edtnps90 1171044206 208.66.252.228 (Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:03:26 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:03:26 MST
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9202
Date: 2007-02-09T18:03:26+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com> writes:
> Still, there is a strong argument is that for some class of algorithms it
> might be beneficial to be able to "drop on the floor" a bigger part of the
> graph altogether. [...] Reclaiming that abandoned part might require
> implementing the same tracking logic that GC already provides out of the box
> and therefore the argument goes that the use of off-the-shelf GC can be
> beneficial for the memory-management aspect of such an algorithm. (Any
> thoughts on this?)

My thoughts: not "might", but "definitely". Also, the advantage is not
restricted to some class of algorithms -- it is in fact the common case.

You don't need a complex mesh for this kind of advantage to kick in, even
regular tree cleanup is greatly simplified: just let go of the subbranch you
no longer need, and avoid that whole cleanup traversal.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.