From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-09-29T03:16:45+09:00
Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby

On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 04:04:13AM +0900, William Djaja Tjokroaminata wrote:
> You are probably correct, but not with the current Ruby gc.  Event Dave
> and Andy admit in their Pickaxe book "Ruby is not the universal panacea
> for programmers' problems.  There will always be times when you'll need a
> particular language: the environment may dictate it, you may have special
> libraries you need, performance concerns..."  See, "performance concerns".
> 
> Also, nothing good comes without any cost.  If real-time GC is really
> universally good, and Matz loves gc so much, why Ruby gc is not a
> real-time gc?
> 

If it were real-time, the cost would be amortized during the whole
program execution, but the overall overhead would be bigger.

It would be cool, however, if Ruby's GC could be selected at run-time.

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
Linux is addictive, I'm hooked!
	-- MaDsen Wikholm's .sig