> Maybe an interesting feature of the language is (so i think) that it's the first language with a stateful garbage collector. It basically knows what memory goes out of scope and which doesn't without having to scan for it
You should probably describe what you mean by that somewhere. Because on its face it doesn't seem to make sense. If you don't need to scan, why is the benchmark "how many times can we scan?"?
How is this different from ARC/ORC or something more like that?
It doesnt do tracing(scanning) to find memory that is no longer used. There's still logic that has to run that frees up memory.
ARC : cycle problems
ORC : Not much information is available, i can only find things about nim, but there seem to be alot of problems with it according to certain articles. Not sure if true, but this seems something completely different than what we do.
GC is a dead end for performance-critical software. It can't be faster than owner-based memory management.
> Maybe an interesting feature of the language is (so i think) that it's the first language with a stateful garbage collector. It basically knows what memory goes out of scope and which doesn't without having to scan for it
You should probably describe what you mean by that somewhere. Because on its face it doesn't seem to make sense. If you don't need to scan, why is the benchmark "how many times can we scan?"?
How is this different from ARC/ORC or something more like that?
It doesnt do tracing(scanning) to find memory that is no longer used. There's still logic that has to run that frees up memory.
ARC : cycle problems
ORC : Not much information is available, i can only find things about nim, but there seem to be alot of problems with it according to certain articles. Not sure if true, but this seems something completely different than what we do.