Re: Speed of C++ compared with speed of other languages

From:

tanix@mongo.net (tanix)

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++

Date:

Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:39:42 GMT

Message-ID:

<hh3eve$uui$5@news.eternal-september.org>

In article <hh3c3g$mea$1@news.albasani.net>, Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> wrote:

James Kanze wrote:

On Dec 24, 2:03 pm, Branimir Maksimovic <bm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Stefan Ram wrote:

[...]

Allocation is not where GC fails, rather deallocation....

It doesn't fail there, either. But any comparison should take
deallocation into consideration. (Well, formally... there's no
deallocation with garbage collection. But the system must take
some steps to determine when memory can be reused.)

I DO like that one. What a master stroke!

:--}

Because there is no fastest and simpler way to perform
collection, than to stop program, perform collection in
multiple threads, then let program work....

Try Googleing for "incremental garbage collection".

Incremental garbage collection is form of collection when
you don;t free everything immediately, but this does not
change a fact whenever you have to see if something is referenced
or not you have to stop program and examine pointers,

Yes. This IS becoming a matter of life and death issue it seems.

:--}

which of course kills performance of threads...

Greets

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.