Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
While I think I understand the gist of the problem (i.e. a good GC tracks objects, not scope), I don’t know enough about the subject to convince others.
Can you give me an explanation on why there are no garbage-collected languages with deterministic destructors?
They are NOT mutually exclusive. Feel free to use C++ with libgc (Boehm-Reiser-Detlefs collector). You can still use RAII, smart pointers, and manual deletion, but with the GC running you can also just “forget” to delete some objects.
@Andy’s answer regarding resources being disposed too late misses the important point: it isn’t the delay releasing resources which is crucial semantically, but rather the order of release.
The reason GC tends not to order release well is that it would require a topological sort on ordering requirements (dependencies) and that’s an expensive algorithm.
Nevertheless Ocaml GC has an interesting facility where you can attach a finaliser to an object. If the object becomes unreachable the finaliser is run, however the object is not deleted (because the finaliser could make it reachable again: in that case you can even attach another finaliser). These finalisers can provide some control over ordering.