[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: following up on speed
> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:44:20 -0400
> From: Daniel Weinreb <DLWeinreb@attbi.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1
> X-Accept-Language: en-us
> Cc: Mike Salib <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Ken Anderson wrote:
> > "C programmers should now seriously consider using conservative
> > garbage collection instead of malloc/free in programs they write."
> A big theme of the LL1 workshop was: why isn't industry listening to
> academia? This
> strikes me as an excellent case to study, if anyone has the time and
> inclination to do so.
> > I think Java and C++ contributed to the acceptance of GC,
> > Java because it had GC, and C++ because it doesn't.
> On the other hand, I think you'll find that lots and lots of people in
> are still quite convinced that GC is a very big price to pay, that GC is one
> big reason that Java is slower than C++ and why you want to use C++ when
> you really care about speed, etc.
I can say that personally I'd probably be using C++ right now if the STL
used conservative GC. I thought about re-implementing the STL to do this
but I had neither the time, the inclination or the expertise to do so.
Since I don't feel like writing my own container classes using GC in C++, I
decided to use other languages that do support GC natively. IMO this is a
big obstacle to the continued growth of C++ (whether this is a good thing
or not is another question).