Mike;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
In theory, the above seems like a huge limitation. In practice, I<br>
find that there are other bugs and things that I generally have to<br>
fight long before I get annoyed about garbage collection. ;-)<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I agree with this, it's also what I found.<br><br>Still; in many cases I end up defining the variables outside of the loop (but inside of the class or function) and where we'd normally instantiate them I reset them to 0. I'm not religious about this as often it's not worth the trouble but for tight, continual loops in long term projects I do it and sometimes even go as far as recycling the variables I use for "for" loops. <br>
<br>Most of the time this won't matter but it gives me some peace of mind, knowing I'm safe from running out of memory in live performance. Actually I find this peace of mind matters more than the actual memory footprint; I haven't ever run out of memory in practice. Considering modern OS's and swap-files I think you'd run into other issues before you actually ran out of memory. I really don't think the average OS is going to be happy with a modern HD that consists entirely of a swap-file... I'm not sure where or how it would go wrong, and if you don't mind I'm not going to try it out either :¬).<br>
</div></div><br>Yours,<br>Kas.<br>