Have you read your PFDS today?

Purely Functional Data Structures
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf

When a C programmer needs an efficient data structure for a particular problem, he or she can often simply look one up in any of a number of good textbooks or handbooks. Unfortunately, programmers in functional languages such as Standard ML or Haskell do not have this luxury. Although some data structures designed for imperative languages such as C can be quite easily adapted to a functional setting, most cannot, usually because they depend in crucial ways on assignments, which are disallowed, or at least discouraged, in functional languages. To address this imbalance, we describe several techniques for designing functional data structures, and numerous original data structures based on these techniques, including multiple variations of lists, queues, double-ended queues, and heaps, many supporting more exotic features such as random access or efficient catenation.

In addition, we expose the fundamental role of lazy evaluation in amortized functional data structures. Traditional methods of amortization break down when old versions of a data structure, not just the most recent, are available for further processing. This property is known as persistence, and is taken for granted in functional languages. On the surface, persistence and amortization appear to be incompatible, but we show how lazy evaluation can be used to resolve this conflict, yielding amortized data structures that are efficient even when used persistently. Turning this relationship between lazy evaluation and amortization around, the notion of amortization also provides the first practical techniques for analyzing the time requirements of non-trivial lazy programs.
 
Finally, our data structures offer numerous hints to programming language designers, illustrating the utility of combining strict and lazy evaluation in a single language, and providing non-trivial examples using polymorphic recursion and higher-order, recursive modules.

>>78

or ignorance about the potential of computingdesire of HW manufacturers to sell product

FTFY

This "GC isn't slow" bullshit really feels like a conspiracy. It's not slow to you because you don't know any better and are accustomed to programs taking more resources than they should. You just haven't seen the true small and fast.

>>94
That's just a roundabout way of saying (like most other pro-GC articles) that the less you have to GC, the faster it is. Manual management is fast if you never have to free() either. Duh.

Many years ago a friend went to one of the many Java advocacy events Sun (this was really long ago) ran. I remember this clearly because he told me one of the funniest things was seeing, in one of the presentations about how GC is "low overhead", the extreme lag of the presenter's laptop --- which was running their latest idea at the time, a full Java-based OS. No wonder that didn't catch on...