Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!news.glorb.com!indigo.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!mauve.octanews.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 From: Michael Wojcik Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Managed-Code Bloat Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:04:45 -0400 Organization: Micro Focus Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p90f35c530f1f11e2b397a44a97083c33d7a8b456e2d0fe50.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5117 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message , BGB wrote: > >> delete can basically also allow a VM to free stuff early, and thus >> potentially improve overall performance. > > Isn’t that conceding the point that automatic garbage collection saps > performance? Research shows it does not, as a general rule. See for example Blackburn & McKinley's paper on ulterior reference counting. The generational GC in that study outperforms the ref-counting GC in total test execution time. The incentive to hybridize is reducing the GC pause time. (And incidentally, reference-counting garbage collection is still automatic garbage collection. And the "automatic" is redundant, too.) -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University