Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Managed-Code Bloat
Followup-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:17:09 +1200
Organization: Geek Central
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <isjjl5$sm1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>
References: <isht62$t08$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <isis49$cpq$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118-92-86-36.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1307398630 29377 118.92.86.36 (6 Jun 2011 22:17:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 22:17:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5037

In message <isis49$cpq$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer wrote:

>  From a programming language design concept, one thing is abundantly
> clear: manually-managed memory is a failure.

And yet managed code has failed to take off in the mass market. Why is that?

> Most programmers--even the very best--have very little ability to prevent
> memory from being leaked. That's why pretty much everyone accuses every
> very large application written in native languages as acting like a leaky
> bucket: Windows, Firefox, etc.

And yet it is the “managed” apps that tend to be the memory hogs.