4 ms·

Can you point out a specific example then? I'm genuinely not trying to play dumb. I very honestly not see that complexity that should be obvious to me given tha

by simias 8y ago

Can you point out a specific example then? I'm genuinely not trying to play dumb. I very honestly not see that complexity that should be obvious to me given that I spend most of my time writing code in non-GC languages. Maybe it's just Stockholm syndrome and I'm so used to working that way that I don't even see the problem anymore but there are now a long string of replies talking abstractly about the overhead of programming in a non-GC environment and I simply don't relate at all. It's a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

cblades 8y ago
>store it somewhere to be dropped later, either on its own or as part of the structure it belongs to. Wherever you're storing the reference, you have to eventually free the memory. That propagates memory-management code throughout your codebase, and is error-prone. I totally agree that if you're allocating on the stack it's a non-issue. If you're returning a reference and always freeing in the caller, that's pretty easy too, but you have to have that logic in every single caller. If you're storing a reference on the heap somewhere, you suddenly have dynamic lifetimes with indeterminate reference counts, and it gets quite hard to 1) correctly manage memory and 2) verify that you're correctly managing memory. The alternative is that in all three instances in a GC language, I don't have to care about memory management. Barring unusual edge cases, I can't forget to deallocate something and end up with a memory leak.
- irq11 8y ago
  ”If you're storing a reference on the heap somewhere, you suddenly have dynamic lifetimes with indeterminate reference counts, and it gets quite hard to 1) correctly manage memory and 2) verify that you're correctly managing memory.” It is axiomatic that GC programs leak memory. I’ve never encountered one that didn’t. The difference is that it’s harder to see, and most programmers who have grown up with GC systems don’t know how to fix it. ”The alternative is that in all three instances in a GC language, I don't have to care about memory management.” Again, no. The alternative is thar you aren’t paying attention, and don’t see the leaks until they become fatal. Just like cockroaches, you have them, somewhere.

by simias 8y ago

cblades 8y ago

>store it somewhere to be dropped later, either on its own or as part of the structure it belongs to. Wherever you're storing the reference, you have to eventually free the memory. That propagates memory-management code throughout your codebase, and is error-prone. I totally agree that if you're allocating on the stack it's a non-issue. If you're returning a reference and always freeing in the caller, that's pretty easy too, but you have to have that logic in every single caller. If you're storing a reference on the heap somewhere, you suddenly have dynamic lifetimes with indeterminate reference counts, and it gets quite hard to 1) correctly manage memory and 2) verify that you're correctly managing memory. The alternative is that in all three instances in a GC language, I don't have to care about memory management. Barring unusual edge cases, I can't forget to deallocate something and end up with a memory leak.

irq11 8y ago
”If you're storing a reference on the heap somewhere, you suddenly have dynamic lifetimes with indeterminate reference counts, and it gets quite hard to 1) correctly manage memory and 2) verify that you're correctly managing memory.” It is axiomatic that GC programs leak memory. I’ve never encountered one that didn’t. The difference is that it’s harder to see, and most programmers who have grown up with GC systems don’t know how to fix it. ”The alternative is that in all three instances in a GC language, I don't have to care about memory management.” Again, no. The alternative is thar you aren’t paying attention, and don’t see the leaks until they become fatal. Just like cockroaches, you have them, somewhere.