[DUG] Embarcadero article

[Leigh Wanstead]

I am using MemChk to solve GC in Delphi ;-) I think no overhead.

Have a nice day

Regards
Leigh
www.smootharm.com


-----Original Message-----
From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz
[mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz]On Behalf Of Todd Martin
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 3:16 p.m.
To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
Subject: Re: [DUG] Embarcadero article


Hi Sean

I agree with you, GC is good to have at times.

What I am suggesting would allow Delphi to switch on GC, for those that
want it, or off, for those that don't. Or even better, provide GC (or
not) for a subset of registered classes. Can anyone complain about that?

If Delphi provided a notification system which dispatched an event
whenever a reference was added or released on a TObject instance, there
would be no need for IInterface/IUnknown. TObject would not need any
extra methods and therefore would not incur any overhead.

Todd.

> I don't want to get to deep into a discussion of this, the last time I got
into a discussion on GC in non technical, I lost days of my life.  However:
>  - Suggesting that I move to prism to get a gc makes as much sense as
suggesting that you move to c++ to get a 64 bit compiler
>  - As Phil said "It's horse for courses".  In the areas you work in, gc is
obviously of no use.  In the areas I mostly work in, it would make my life
much easier.
>  - Personally I get tired of the "GC = laziness" argument.  It's
dismissive without any real thought.
>  - I do know how to use reference counted interfaces and smart pointers.
I use them for some things.  However reference counting doesn't work for
circular references without a lot of additional work.  Adding to the opf I
use would take more time than it would save.
>
> Regards
>
> Sean Cross
> CIO
> Catalyst Risk Management
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz]
On Behalf Of Jolyon Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 2:28 p.m.
> To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List'
> Subject: Re: [DUG] Embarcadero article
>
> I think the vitriol stems from the idea that people believe (and I think
> rightly) that the sort of garbage collection that people are asking for is
> largely an all or nothing affair.
>
> i.e. if it's added to the language to please those who want GC (but who -
> for some reason - aren't inclined to simply use a runtime environment
> provides exactly what they say they want) then that this necessarily
> pollutes the language for those who feel that Garbage Collection comes at
> too high a price and is just pandering to the inherent laziness in all of
us
> (myself included - I'd love to be able to think less, but I know that I'd
> make more mistakes if I did, not less).
>
> The distrust of GC as a technology amongst experienced practitioners (as
it
> typically is) of the black arts of software development stems from:
>
>  - less efficient use of memory (*)
>  - unpredictably distributed performance across application usage (*)
>  - loss of determinism (debugging complexity)
>
> (*) GC assumes a vast over supply of RAM and an availability of
application
> idle cycles in which to recover wastefully over-allocated RAM.
>
>
> The beauty of the GC framework (ref counted lifetime managed via
interfaces)
> that Delphi ALREADY OFFERS (!) is that:
>
>  - as you say with 'D', it's optional  :)
>  - it remains deterministic
>
>
> So don't you already have what you want?
> All you have to do now is use it.  :)
>
> --
>  "Smile", they said.  "it could be worse!"
>  So I did.  And it was.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz]
On
> Behalf Of Sean Cross
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 14:02
> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
> Subject: Re: [DUG] Embarcadero article
>
> I do use C# where it makes sense.  It just doesn't make sense for the sort
> of shareware and desktop apps I mostly do.
>
> I have never understood the fanatical hatred of garbage collection that
some
> Delphi developers have (not aimed at anyone in particular but if you
either
> try discussing gc in non-technical, you will get a large amount of vitriol
> heading your way).  It makes some things much easier, and some things
> harder.  Optional GC such as in D seems reasonable to me, but apparently
not
> to everyone.
>
> Regards
>
> Sean Cross
> CIO
> Catalyst Risk Management
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz [mailto:delphi-bounces at delphi.org.nz]
On
> Behalf Of Phil Scadden
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 1:33 p.m.
> To: NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List
> Subject: Re: [DUG] Embarcadero article
>
>
>> Garbage collection is what I really want, but it's a long way down the
> list of what will ever get added to Delphi :(
>>
> Then use C#. I want Delphi as a C++ replacement with as few  compromises
> as possible, not C#. That said, the C# programming model has things I
> wouldnt mind in the language - data bound objects, decent object
> inspector and the dynamic interface thingies. Of course, if you are
> doing 64 bit, would MPI support be too much to ask as well?
>

_______________________________________________
NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list
Post: delphi at delphi.org.nz
Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-request at delphi.org.nz with Subject:
unsubscribe