Timeline for Disadvantages of scoped-based memory management
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2015 at 14:54 | history | protected | gnat | ||
| Jan 13, 2015 at 7:10 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 21, 2014 at 22:54 | comment | added | Paul | @gnat Very interesting discussion. :) | |
| May 21, 2014 at 21:21 | comment | added | gnat | related: Did the developers of Java consciously abandon RAII? | |
| Mar 20, 2014 at 22:57 | audit | First posts | |||
| Mar 20, 2014 at 22:58 | |||||
| Mar 17, 2014 at 4:58 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/445423933064744960 | ||
| Mar 14, 2014 at 23:27 | answer | added | user1703394 | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 10:48 | comment | added | PlasmaHH | btw. I like to refer to it as SBRM since you can use the same mechanism to manage resources in general, not just memory. | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 0:11 | answer | added | supercat | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 20:53 | history | edited | Paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 9, 2014 at 19:31 | comment | added | mikołak | @Blrfl: except that the cyclic reference problem lacks relevance to the kind of garbage collection that Java uses. There are other methods of automated memory management than reference counting. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 17:15 | comment | added | Blrfl | @delnan: The cyclic reference problem in an environment that doesn't support pointers forces the adoption of the model that instances continue to exist after their reference counts reach zero. Because there's no finalization at that point, it remains incumbent on the developer to know when non-memory instances are no longer needed and manually invoke a method to mop up, just like you would with memory of GC wasn't sweeping up behind you. C++ gives you guaranteed destructors but not garbage collection, and those tradeoffs are what you evaluate when picking a language for a project. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 16:56 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 17, 2014 at 18:50 | |||||
| Mar 9, 2014 at 15:36 | answer | added | Patrick | timeline score: 13 | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 15:23 | comment | added | user7043 | @Blrfl Nonsense. "Manual" resource management (for resources other than memory, obviously) would be preferable even if that "problem" did not exist, because GC can run a very long time after the resource becomes unused, or even not run at all. That's no problem for memory, and memory management is all that garbage collection is supposed to solve. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 15:00 | comment | added | Blrfl |
Java's manual resource management problem is a side effect of not guaranteeing that an object's finalize() method will be called prior to garbage collection. In effect, this creates the same class of problem that garbage collection is supposed to solve.
|
|
| Mar 9, 2014 at 14:29 | comment | added | Philipp | Some disadvantages (especially concerning speed) are discussed in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 14:13 | answer | added | user7043 | timeline score: 28 | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 14:13 | answer | added | Jörg W Mittag | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 14:11 | answer | added | Doc Brown | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 14:01 | answer | added | amon | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 13:32 | history | asked | Paul | CC BY-SA 3.0 |