And I like not noticing. Even if my code ran a little faster overall with mark-and-sweep GC, I'd rather have the consistancy of performance provided by RC. Now, if my code ran 10-times faster (or even 3-times faster) with GC, I'd put up with moderate burstiness. But Lisp programs spend 25% to 40% of their time doing GC. Are you really claiming that RC overhead is anywhere near that high?? Or is the nature of Perl that GC in it will be tons more efficient than it is in Lisp?
Are you implying that it will be easier to implement a correct version of GC than of RC? The research says that RC is easier to implement. Sure, we run into bugs in Perl's RC, especially when we extend a large, old code base in ways not originally envisioned. You propose that we won't run into any bugs in GC??
A question: Does mark-and-sweep even preserve destruction order? It doesn't sound like it but I've only read high-level descriptions
In reply to RE: What's Wrong With Reference Counting?
by tye
in thread What's Wrong With Perl?
by davorg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |