Observable GC

Filip Pizlo fpizlo at apple.com
Fri Oct 20 14:33:33 UTC 2017

For what it’s worth, I have never agreed with this policy. This policy seems to be based on feelings not facts. 

I remember implementing real time GCs for Java, which changed GC timing and behavior a lot, and having zero problem getting that aspect of the GC to work well with existing code. It seems like we are using non-problems to make excuses to avoid supporting something useful.

In fact, WeakMap is more restrictive constraint on GC algo than weak refs or finalization or whatever, since it means that a Siebert-style fine-grained incremental GC with O(1) increments is off the table.


> On Oct 20, 2017, at 5:59 AM, Domenic Denicola <d at domenic.me> wrote:
> https://w3ctag.github.io/design-principles/#js-gc
> From: es-discuss [mailto:es-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Michal Wadas
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 08:07
> To: es-discuss at mozilla.org
> Subject: Observable GC
> Hi.
> Is there any comprehensive answer about why ability to observe garbage collection is considered undesirable in JavaScript?
> Michał Wadas
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20171020/5500c19e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list