BCS пишет: > Reply to Weed, > >> If you know the >> best way for language *without GC* guaranteeing the existence of an >> object without overhead - I have to listen! >> > > Never delete anything? > > One of the arguments for GC is that it might well have /less/ overhead > than any other practical way of managing dynamic memory.
Mmm When I say "overhead" I mean the cost of executions, and not cost of programming > Yes you can be > very careful in keeping track of pointers (not practical) or use smart > pointers and such (might end up costing more than GC) I am do not agree: GC overexpenditure CPU or memory. Typically, both. > but neither is > particularly nice.
