From: Nat Pryce <nat.pryce@...13media.com>
Date: 2002-07-02T02:25:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby implementation Q's

> As a final point, I hear a lot of talk about finalization and it's
> pitfalls.  It seems to me that finalization happens to late to be
> truly useful.  What would the theoretical implications be of an
> optional destroy mechanism? [details elided]

I have heard this mentioned a lot and never understood these comments. Can
you explain in more detail? Why do you think finalization happens too late
to be useful?

I have used the existing finalisation mechanism many times, from simple uses
(e.g. ensuring the release of external resources) to quite complex classes
(e.g. a weak hashtable that removes entries when keys are garbage
collected).  I have *never* found a limitation with the finalization system.
On the other hand, I have found it conceptually simpler than Java's
finalisation system (just look at the complexity of the java.lang.ref
package), and less prone to dangling pointers than C++ destructors.

Cheers,
            Nat.

________________________________
Dr. Nathaniel Pryce
B13media Ltd.
Studio 3a, Aberdeen Business Centre, 22/24 Highbury Grove, London, N5 2EA
http://www.b13media.com