Re: GC Design Question

Friedrich Dominicus writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>Aaron Gray writes:
>>> Not sure about your question, but here's a very good paper on GC :-
>>>     http://www.daimi.au.dk/~ups/OOVM/papers/grarup-seligmann:train.pdf
>>
>> Yow.  A 15 years old paper is still a good recommendation?
>
> Hm, what you you think about even older papers and books?

Depends on what has happened since they were written.  I think they do
not tend to cover much developments.  (Though some do:-)

In this case, one thing I don't see mentioned in the paper is threads,
which I imagine complicates GC considerably.  And every once in a while
I've seen claims that GC methods have been improving for years.  But I
don't know much about GC myself.

> They still are around and people know them, just search for "gotos
> considered harmful" and many more.  I would be very cautious with
> writing such senses, they suggest not very positive qualities on your
> side.

The "sense" I meant to express is that it sounds like less has happened
with GC than I had the impression was the case.

-- 
Hallvard