Warp escreveu:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> - We might finally get concurrent GC too.
>>> amazing news, huh?
>>>
>>> concurrent GC is almost as hard as solving a halting problem... ;p
> 
>> Have *you* tried it? :-P
> 
>> Seriously, analysing the structure of a huge chunk of data while it's 
>> still being modified is no picnic.
> 
>   If Haskell requires a garbage collector, it means that objects are not
> strictly scope-bound (in other words, objects can outlive the scope where
> they were creted, rather than being automatically destroyed when the scope
> ends). This, consequently, means that objects are not handled by value, but
> by reference (or pointer, or whatever you want to call it), which is a
> requirement if you want to share the same object with more than one other
> object. I know next to nothing about Haskell, but the little I have seen
> doesn't look like it would be reference-based code. It *looks* to me like
> everything is handled by value.
> 
>   Could give a simple example which demonstrates the need for a GC?

kinda weird your reasoning there.  Java passes things by reference and 
still needs a GC.  I don't quite see the linking between the need for a 
GC and passing things by reference or by value.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message