Garbage Collection

Maxim: Anything that a computer can do is beneath human dignity.

Manually managing memory requires large amounts of bookkeeping code for something that a computer could easily do. Not only that, it has been a constant source of bugs in programs for decades. Moreover, garbage collection makes a language more expressive, by letting objects be shared between different data structures, something not with manual deallocation where every object must have a known owner, or the programmer must implement an ad-hoc GC mechanism such as reference counting. Thus, Garbage Collection is good, and still calling free is nothing short of embarrassing.

>>1

Go use Python, why don't you.

Nikita lost his job because of GC.

GC is shit made by Jews to put down the hard-working goyim. Shalom be upon you, >>1-san.

So you're saying that programming is beneath human dignity? Because computers can totally write code.

garbage collection makes a language more expressive, by letting objects be shared between different data structures

Alright, I see that your experience in programming is limited to reading buzzwords in Haskell blogs. You're surely forthright about your knowledge level.

>>4
It is a little easier to share objects when you don't need to maintain ownership rules.

>>5
What does that have to do with making a language more expressive? Deprivation of memory management possibilities make a language less expressive.

>>3
Oh no, please don't tell me the highly persistent anti-GC retard is Nikita.

>>4
No computers cannot write code or at least in the way you are suggesting. What are programmers for? Programming. They write programs, such as windows or linux or quake or firefox or something. There is no computer that can do such a thing.

www.cc.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/index.html
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~ndantam3/lisp.html

I'm sure he knows more than you, who are you exactly? Someone posting on /prog/.

>>8

No computers cannot write code or at least in the way you are suggesting. What are programmers for? Programming. They write programs, such as windows or linux or quake or firefox or something. There is no computer that can do such a thing.

A programmer has an understanding of an idea, and then finds a means of creating an implementation. There is a way to compare the work so far to the conceptual idea. Eventually, the implementation is more or less materialized. A computer that can take a representation of an idea, produce implementations, and compare work to the idea will have the ability to do the same process. It isn't trivial, but you can't rule out the possibility.

I'm sure he knows more than you, who are you exactly? Someone posting on /prog/.

>>4 could be ndantam3 for all you know. Or are you ndantam3?

>>7

No. That is not me. But I've lost my job due to GC issues: memory intensive process allocated gigabytes, failed to free them after processing, leading to other processes crashing with out of memory error. I had limited time (2 days) to solve the problem and no knowledge what causes leakage (deflate implementation, some unmanaged memory), so I tried to decouple offending code into separate process, which I failed to do in timely manner, because code was heavily convoluted and two processes had to do a lot of IPC, which I implemented through filesystem files. When 2 days gone, I had solution, but it was untested and not ready for deployment.

>>9
muh hard ai

Stick to the fantasy books, kid.

>>11
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█ ___ █
█ // 7 █
█ (_,_/\ WORSHIP THIS █
█ \ \ YOUR THROBBING GOD █
█ \ \ █
█ _\ \__ █
█ ( \ ) █
█ \___\___/ █
█ █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

>>12
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█ ___ █
█ // 7 █
█ (_,_/\ WORSHIP THIS █
█ \ \ YOUR THROBBING GOD █
█ \ \ █
█ _\ \__ █
█ ( \ ) █
█ \___\___/ █
█ █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀

Heap exhausted (no more space for allocation).
There are still 36864 bytes available; the request was for 50384 bytes.

PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

>>8
Have you heard of Lisp macros, kid? Computers can write code automatically. Sure, they need human input to do that, but then again garbage collection is also a function of the human input. Therefore, programming is beneath human dignity.

>>15
But Lisp macros are written by people and for the convenience of people. Like how compilers and programming languages are. Better examples of computers programming would be Reimu, the tcp protocol optimizer. If I recal the name correctly.

>>16
But garbage collectors are written by people and for the convenience of people. Like how compilers and programming languages are.

>>15
So where's the computer that programmed the kernel of a operating system or the computer that programmed an FPS PC game or the computer that programmed a nuclear reactor's computer system or...

kid

>>18
Those things are all written in languages with no forced GC.

>>18
Besides, just because some niggers don't have human dignity and write code by hand does not make human programming any less degrading and humiliating.

Maxim: Anything that a computer can do is beneath human dignity.

Manually programming requires large amounts of bookkeeping typing for something that a computer could easily do. Not only that, it has been a constant source of bugs in programs for decades. Moreover, automatic codegeneration makes a language more expressive, by letting code be instantiated between different call sites, something not with manual programming where every piece of code must be retyped by a human typis, or the programmer must implement an ad-hoc codegen mechanism such as C++ templates. Thus, Automatic Codegen is good, and still writing programs is nothing short of embarrassing.

_{(stopping the dubsfaggot from dubsbumping)}