> The chickens will always come home to roost: eventually the memory limit will be reached and you'll have to pay that collection cost in full. This sounds lik

> The chickens will always come home to roost: eventually the memory limit will be reached and you'll have to pay that collection cost in full. This sounds like you don't understand how GCs work. I can't cover all the basics, but the point is that they do constant work at a frequency that is arbitrarily low. > The tradeoff in adding a memory copying/moving workload due to GC, even one that's invoked "rarely", is simply not worthwhile. Again, I don't think you know the basics, so this conversation is a bit pointless. No one, and I mean no one, debates that moving collectors offer the best throughput of all general-purpose memory management solutions. There are tradeoffs, but not the ones you mention. You are debating the fundamentals of Memory Management 101. > These economics have been heavily impacted by the RAMpocalypse. No, they haven't. You're saying that not because that's something you've looked into, but just because it's something you imagine might be true. It could affect the economics, but for that RAM prices would have to be many, many times higher than they are now.