[chuck-users] Chuck garbage collection needs a manual
signal.automatique at gmail.com
Mon Sep 6 18:20:04 EDT 2010
> You have sent seven identical mail to this list - it suffices with one.
Personally I didn't think those mails were the same. They do all touch on
-perceived- shortcomings of ChucK. This, I feel, is fair; it's unfinished
My own recommendation to Tambet would be to try to get a feel for things and
see how far one can get. ChucK, like any other language, has its own ways of
solving issues. It also has shortcomings, issues and many bugs.
> ChucK does have a GC, a reference count, though not fully implemented. If
> you check the archive of this list, there has been some discussions about
> that, about a year ago, I think.
Indeed, but the current state of GC is only vaguely documented. It's only in
the list archives and only because Mike Clemow and -to a lesser degree- me
pushed function arguments and array elements to their limits that we were
able to infer something about what we have now.
> It has also been discussed other types of GC. A problem with a collecting
> GC is that it must work with the perfect timing that ChucK has, which syncs
> every sample time (at about 44 kHz).
Indeed. But we don't have to calculate a sample every sample; we only need
to calculate a block every block; there is some leeway.
What I am wondering about is what is leading Tambert to send these seven
(trusting on Hans's counting here) emails. Perhaps Tambert is trying to do
something very hard that is running into real bottlenecks. If Tambert could
send some code that has issues we could have a look at what could be done to
avoid the issues it might run into.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chuck-users