Re: why malloc/free instead of GC?

At 03:49 PM 2/18/2003 +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> >>>>> "Charles" == Charles Fiterman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>     Charles> Consider a large online application with the following
>     Charles> common requirement.  90% of all requests will be filled
>     Charles> in one second. All requests will be filled in ten
>     Charles> seconds.
>
>There are two meanings of large here :
>
>     1. application with a big memory requirement at runtime
>
>     2. application with a big amount of code

Both.


>Since copying a hundred megabytes per second is realistic on today's
>machines, I would believe that a full major garbage collection of a
>gigabyte heap (which for me is a big heap) should require less than 10
>seconds.

The commercial world is approaching 10 gigabyte heaps. This means trouble. 
Programmers in such environments are starting to manage their own heaps to 
avoid garbage collection. This only makes storage requirements expand even 
faster.

Languages gain power more from their restrictions than their capabilities. 
Functional languages gain referential  transparency and composition from 
the loss of side effects. Type safe languages can be used in places where 
people fear viruses. Giving up circular data structures buys finalizers and 
large applications.