From P.H.Welch@ukc.ac.uk Sun Oct 31 15:49:04 2004
From: P.H.Welch <P.H.Welch@ukc.ac.uk>
To: java-threads@ukc.ac.uk, mboosten@best.ms.philips.com, occam-com@ukc.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 13:30:06 +0100
Subject: Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"
Message-ID: <E13cRxu-0004sG-00@myrtle.ukc.ac.uk>


< ... forwarding from Lawrence Dickson ... >

===========================================================================
From: tjoccam@crash.cts.com (Lawrence Dickson)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 05:26:34 -0700
In-Reply-To: M_Boosten <mboosten@best.ms.philips.com>
       "Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"" (Sep 22,  1:02pm)
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 1995-03-03)
To: M_Boosten <mboosten@best.ms.philips.com>, java-threads@ukc.ac.uk,
        occam-com@ukc.ac.uk
Subject: Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"

On Sep 22,  1:02pm, M_Boosten wrote:
} Subject: Re: "No aliasing = no garbage collection"
} Hi,
} 
} In my opinion, garbage collection is an efficiency mechanism.
} I think you can proof that without garbage collection you can
} always use at least 50% of the computer's memory.
} Memory for applications that need dynamic memory management
} (typically PCs/workstations) is cheap.
} 
} Conclusion (assuming I remembered correctly that the proof can be done):
}   if you are not bothered with performance, use a garbage collector,
}   and save on memory budget, use virtual memory as well.
} 
}   if you are bothered with performance, buy twice as much memory, and
}   do not use a garbage collector, nor virtual memory.  Simply, use
}   enough memory.
} 
} Anyone agrees?
} 
}       Marcel
} 
}-- End of excerpt from M_Boosten



Yes, I agree...

The temptation to attach every bell and whistle is a strong one. 
But that problem becomes an opportunity when you remember that
implies that the niche of clean, understandable simplicity is
almost unoccupied.

Larry