|
determine what data objects in a program cannot possibly be needed; throw them away. Is this correct? My understanding of copying collection is that nothing is actually thrown away, but rather that reachable objects are explicitly kept. If that is the case, then wouldn't that phrasing be a bit misleading? --maw? The storage used by the objects that are collected is reclaimed by some means, presumably to be used again for the creation of fresh objects. Thrown away is too imprecise, will edit. --drj |
|
Split. --drj. |
Just because you think [Garbage collection as a civic service]? is more important than [Garbage collection as a memory management strategy]?? Obviously there is a context and bias problem, but I came to this page and found what I expected (I used to write garbage collectors for a living). I assume you did not? --drj Hmm. My comments were clearly written too hastily. I don't mean to be that harsh, but the fence has two sides, and people live on both sides of it. --drj
I used to be employed collecting trash, and I assume you did not :-) But that is irrelevant. Rather, what is relevant is that there are many people using Wikipedia, with many different backgrounds and scopes of preconceived contexts. [Garbage collection as a civic service]? should not go in as Garbage collection either. Garbage collection should be a short pointer page to both topics, each under separate articles. They need clearly unambiguous terms to the general public in them. "Computer" should be in the title of the one (perhaps Computer memory garbage collection) and something clear like "civic" or "municipal" in the other. --Alan Millar
Split. --drj.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)