Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.sprintlink.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Is Garbage Collection faster?
Message-ID: <DFzHB6.654@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <44uskp$4g6@news.inc.net> <450m7f$77h@camelot.ccs.neu.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 16:18:40 GMT
Lines: 20

will@ccs.neu.edu (William D Clinger) writes:

>In article <44uskp$4g6@news.inc.net> morrisb@cs.uwp.edu
>(Benjamin Morris) writes:
>>Does anybody know of any scheme implementations that do incremental
>>garbage collection?

>Chez Scheme now includes a good incremental garbage collector.
>So does Larceny, which hasn't yet been released.  (And David
>Thompson mentioned ELK.)

I've heard that there are some benchmark results that show
Scheme fatser than C (?) because of garbage collection.
I've variously heard that the results are due to (a) Will
Clinger, and (b) Richard O'Keefe.

Can anyone supply -- or tell me where to find -- details of
these or similar results?

-- jeff
