> On Oct 20, 2017, at 7:45 AM, Mike Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Filip Pizlo <[email protected]> wrote: >> For what it’s worth, I have never agreed with this policy. This policy seems >> to be based on feelings not facts. >> >> I remember implementing real time GCs for Java, which changed GC timing and >> behavior a lot, and having zero problem getting that aspect of the GC to >> work well with existing code. It seems like we are using non-problems to >> make excuses to avoid supporting something useful. >> >> In fact, WeakMap is more restrictive constraint on GC algo than weak refs or >> finalization or whatever, since it means that a Siebert-style fine-grained >> incremental GC with O(1) increments is off the table. > > I'm not familiar with Siebert GCs so I apologize if this is beside > your point. My recollection of those discussions was that we > rejected weak refs in favor of ephemerons because weak references are > still prone to uncollectible cycles that involve a weakly referenced > object being used as both a key and a value.
It’s better to have both. Some use cases are not covered by WeakMap, as evidenced by the fact that people still ask for weak refs or a gc trigger or notification. -Filip _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
