Linked by kragil on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 20:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 550250
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
GC is good for some things (like large non-performance-critical CRM systems, ERP systems, web apps, etc.), but shit for cases where you need to make careful decisions about available resources and runtime (OS kernels, databases, HPC, etc.).
That is also a problem with manual dynamic memory management, though, or any other form of system resource allocation for that matter. Whatever programming language you use, when writing high-performance code, you probably want to allocate as much as possible in advance, so as to avoid having to perform system calls of unpredictable latency within the "fast" snippets later.
Now, your problem seems to be that GC runtimes can seemingly decide to run an expensive GC cycle at the worst possible moment, long after objects have been apparently disposed of. But that's an avoidable outcome, since any serious garbage-collected programming language comes with a standard library function that manually triggers a GC cycle (runtime.GC() in Go, Runtime.gc() in Java, GC.Collect() in C#/.Net). The very reason which such functions exist is so that one can trigger GC overhead in a controlled fashion, in situations where it is not acceptable to endure it at an unpredictable point in the future.
Edited 2013-01-24 05:40 UTC