Article View: comp.sw.components
Article #86Re: Reasons for low reuse
From: Ian Hopper
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1989 03:43
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1989 03:43
24 lines
1366 bytes
1366 bytes
I have always felt that some form of Garbage Collection is needed in order to do a decent job on reusable "Collection" modules. Since the current favorite language (C++) does not consistiently (or easily) support GC, we do not see good quality collection modules. I believe the Smalltalk books come to the same conclusion, but neither Smalltalk nor it's creators are perfect. The classic approach would be to copy-in and copy-out the contents of such containers, but simply passing pointers to contents is often much faster. Do we focus our efforts on languages that have garbage collection, or are we forced to use the copy-in/copy-out approach? Regrettably, the USING code is quite different in the various cases. Looking forward to responses, -- Ian Hopper PS: Writers of collection modules in GC-based environments should not forget to create dynamically-expanding versions of their collections. It is very annoying to have to estimate the size of collections in advance, things always blow up on large data sets.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<175@ntmtv.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!bnrmtv!ntmtv!hopperShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!bnrmtv!ntmtv!hopper From: hopper@ntmtv.UUCP (Ian Hopper) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Reasons for low reuse Message-ID: <175@ntmtv.UUCP> Date: 13 Sep 89 03:43:32 GMT Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 24