Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible?

Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
8 Oct 2006 23:53:48 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[13 earlier articles]
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? sleepingsquirrel@yahoo.com (Greg Buchholz) (2006-09-28)
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com (Robert A Duff) (2006-09-30)
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? danwang74@gmail.com (Daniel C. Wang) (2006-09-30)
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2006-09-30)
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? int2k@gmx.net (Wolfram Fenske) (2006-09-30)
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? scgupta@yahoo.com (Satish Chandra Gupta) (2006-10-03)
Re: Compile Time Garbage Collection impossible? oliver@first.in-berlin.de (Oliver Bandel) (2006-10-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 8 Oct 2006 23:53:48 -0400
Organization: Individual Network Berlin e.V.
References: 06-09-119
Keywords: GC
Posted-Date: 08 Oct 2006 23:53:48 EDT

the.real.doctor.zoidberg@gmail.com wrote:
> Why isn't Compile-Time-Garbage-Collection feasible? Consider a Java
> compiler which produces assembly code for a specific target instead of
> Java's bytecode cenario. The objective is to use Java without the need
> for a GC or VM.


Java sucks nearly every time.


GC not always.


Why do you want to avoid GC?


If you want a language that has GC but nevertheless
is performant, use OCaml. :)


http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/garbage_collection


Ciao,
        Oliver

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.