IMO it's hard to apply a single GC design to many different languages, as each language has it's distinct properties that require the GC to work in s different manner.
2011/10/8 bearophile <[email protected]> > Caligo: > > > I'm just wondering, does Glasgow Haskell Compile (GHC) have the most > advanced GC? > > I remember reading where it said that GHC is like 10 years ahead of all > the other compilers, > > or something to that effect. > > If you want to find an advanced GC that is years ahead of all other ones, > take a look at the garbage collectors inside the Oracle JavaVM. > Haskell is almost purely functional, and its GC has to do a work different > from a Java or D GC. A D GC has to do a work different from a Java GC, and > more similar to a C# GC (but not exactly the same of C# because I think in D > there is a larger percentage of pinned down data). Even if it is not > perfectly fit, I think the recently created good GC for the C# Mono is good > enough for D, maybe with some tuning. > Unfortunately, despite being both Mono and D open source projects, there is > a furiously intense "not invented here" syndrome in the whole planetary > effort of Open Source. Every open source language seems to implement its own > GC If you look at this situation from 15000 feet above it looks like an > incredibly dumb situation. In practice once you get closer, you see > incompatible open source licenses, and differences in the language semantics > that make GC transplants hard or not so useful. Devil is in the details. > > Bye, > bearophile >
