On 01/09/2013 08:33 AM, Rob T wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:23:57 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 07:22:51 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Well, you CAN indeed, create a dumbed down language that is memory
safe and don't require a GC.
Yeah, that's 1 of my 2 points.
The other one you still ignored: the GC doesn't bring much to the
table. (Re C# Java etc.)
There is a point being made here that is perfectly valid. There is a
form of memory leak that a GC can never catch, such as when when memory
is allocated and simply never deallocated by mistake due to a persistent
"in use" pointer that should have been nulled but wasn't.
...
This is not entirely accurate. A GC does not necessarily have to assume
that every reachable pointer will be accessed again. Every memory leak
can be caught by some GC, but no GC catches all.
