From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Roland Orre Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: the future of Guile Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:06:43 +0100 Message-ID: <1196798803.5494.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: Reply-To: guile-user@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1196798828 12196 80.91.229.12 (4 Dec 2007 20:07:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 20:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org To: "Kjetil S. Matheussen" Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 04 21:07:14 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ize2v-0002uZ-UC for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:07:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ize2f-0001q6-Cf for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:06:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ize2b-0001pd-JF for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:06:49 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ize2a-0001p1-HZ for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:06:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ize2a-0001op-Cn for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:06:48 -0500 Original-Received: from csmtp3.b-one.net ([195.47.247.213]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ize2Z-0003i2-SH for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:06:48 -0500 Original-Received: from dyna224-140.nada.kth.se (dyna224-140.nada.kth.se [130.237.224.140]) by csmtp3.b-one.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD1F1016A30; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:06:44 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6328 Archived-At: On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 19:34 +0100, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote: ... > Oh, and another thing. My tests (available in the guile-devel archives) > also showed that the HBGC version usually use a bit less memory > than Guile's old garbage collector. (Yet another "should" > for replacing. :-) ) I don't have much experience with different GC algorithms, but as I understand the HBGC is not intended for background GC. If the GC should be replaced I would consider it wise to replace it with an algorithm than can be run in a thread. This I consider strongly motivated by the fact that most new machines today are multi core. An efficient way to decrease the latency of the GC is to simply run it in background. Regarding GC I also think it is could be useful to have a GC that can compact the memory and of course give allocated memory back to the OS when no longer needed. OK, a compacting GC may make it hard to write applications, so don't take this point too seriously... /Roland _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user