3 ms·

Boehm's a very good garbage collector, given this: > A precise generational collector would perform far better but wouldn't be so easy to drop into a C codebas

by zedshaw 16y ago

Boehm's a very good garbage collector, given this: > A precise generational collector would perform far better but wouldn't be so easy to drop into a C codebase. It's that last part that's key. Without language support at even the basic level, you won't get much better. As for this "precise generational collector", I doubt it. Like everything, saying you need a GC all the time to be safe is just more boogey man fear mongering. You don't need a GC. They're nice yeah. But if you know the application very well then memory management isn't too big a deal.

aufreak3 16y ago
> But if you know the application very well then memory management isn't too big a deal. Agreed. A related case is with Objective-C's memory management scheme which isn't a full GC, but lets you scope your memory allocations. It gets you a level of control that is somewhere between a GC and the kind that boost::shared_ptr does ... neither having the "wait for the trashman" problem that GC brings, nor overdoing the reference count touching like boost can get you into.
- masklinn 16y ago
  > A related case is with Objective-C's memory management scheme which isn't a full GC, but lets you scope your memory allocations. Obj-C 1 right? I believe Obj-C 2 (on OSX, not iOS) has an optional GC, at least for the objective part. Or would I be wrong?
  - mishmash 16y ago
    Yeah, you're right it does. And many of the C-based APIs also have functions to put memory "into" the collector.
thaumaturgy 16y ago
Nice to see someone preaching that old time religion.
modeless 16y ago
GC isn't required to be safe, and it doesn't guarantee safety, but it does makes safety a whole lot more likely. Boehm is the best garbage collector given its constraints, but that doesn't make it a good garbage collector overall, or even one worth using. I agree that good GC requires language support; what I disagree with is the attitude that people should use C anyway and forget GC because Boehm isn't good.
- zedshaw 16y ago
  You know, you bring up another point: Memory leaks are not a "safety" problem in a web server. Just look at Rails. <rimshot>

by zedshaw 16y ago

aufreak3 16y ago

> But if you know the application very well then memory management isn't too big a deal. Agreed. A related case is with Objective-C's memory management scheme which isn't a full GC, but lets you scope your memory allocations. It gets you a level of control that is somewhere between a GC and the kind that boost::shared_ptr does ... neither having the "wait for the trashman" problem that GC brings, nor overdoing the reference count touching like boost can get you into.

masklinn 16y ago
> A related case is with Objective-C's memory management scheme which isn't a full GC, but lets you scope your memory allocations. Obj-C 1 right? I believe Obj-C 2 (on OSX, not iOS) has an optional GC, at least for the objective part. Or would I be wrong?
- mishmash 16y ago
  Yeah, you're right it does. And many of the C-based APIs also have functions to put memory "into" the collector.

thaumaturgy 16y ago

Nice to see someone preaching that old time religion.

modeless 16y ago

GC isn't required to be safe, and it doesn't guarantee safety, but it does makes safety a whole lot more likely. Boehm is the best garbage collector given its constraints, but that doesn't make it a good garbage collector overall, or even one worth using. I agree that good GC requires language support; what I disagree with is the attitude that people should use C anyway and forget GC because Boehm isn't good.

zedshaw 16y ago
You know, you bring up another point: Memory leaks are not a "safety" problem in a web server. Just look at Rails. <rimshot>