Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:3797 comp.lang.eiffel:292 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!nevin1 From: nevin1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++ -- Let's drop the garbage collection arguments Message-ID: <1409@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> Date: 23 Jun 89 23:04:49 GMT References: <1026@krafla.rhi.hi.is> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 17 In article <1026@krafla.rhi.hi.is> snorri@rhi.hi.is (Snorri Agnarsson) writes: |You seem to be suggesting that malloc()/free() is more controllable than |malloc()/garbage collection. If so, then in what sense?? |Garbage collection can be time-consuming, of course, but so can free(). But free() is more predictable. In many current schemes, you never know exactly when GC will take place, or how long it will take. |If you have a language with garbage collection, it is usually very easy |to ensure that no garbage collection gets performed in some critical |section by simply not allocating any memory. What if I *need* to allocate memory in a critical section? Stopping GC for some-of-the-time is not a trivial issue. -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751