> It was demonstrated in the mid 80s that the MMU could be used to implement the write barrier (when I saw that I knew lisp machines were a dead end, though I k

> It was demonstrated in the mid 80s that the MMU could be used to implement the write barrier (when I saw that I knew lisp machines were a dead end, though I kept using them for as long as was feasible). You can use this and other compiler support to implement it in a language not designed for GC support, no problem. Yes, that's why I wrote about support "on the compiler or hardware side" (i.e. MMUs). That said, while this might work in theory, the BDW GC does have support for it, and in practice it doesn't actually work well. Throughput suffers and pause times can actually get worse. By the way, another alternative way of having incremental collection without compiler support is to use fork() for snapshotting (there's an option in D for that), but that has its own issues, of course. > The issue I think you meant is that you can’t have a transporting collector (which also compacts your working set, even allowing you to return memory to the system). A language like C++ doesn’t anticipate an object’s address ever changing, so that’s a no go. No, I wasn't talking about a compacting collector. I very specifically meant generational and/or incremental collection.