I _think_ that the abstract points out that reference-counted garbage collection can be done deterministically. Haskell could some day be an excellent replacement for C/Ada in safety critical markets, but some serious changes to the RTS (most having to do with memory allocation, garbage collection, and multi-threading) would have to be made.<br>
<br>If the GC becomes deterministic, then a much better case can be made for using the language on a plane or in medical devices.<br><br>/jve<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Simon Marlow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com">marlowsd@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On 11/02/2010 17:01, John Van Enk wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Here's the paper:<br>
<a href="http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/466" target="_blank">http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/5/466</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Can you say a bit about why that GC fits your needs? Must it be that particular algorithm? I don't seem to be able to find the paper online.<br>
<br>
Replacing GHC's RTS is no mean feat, as you're probably aware. There are a large number of dependencies between the compiler, the RTS, and the low-level libraries. I expect rather than thinking about replacing the RTS it would be more profitable to look at what kinds of things you need the RTS to do that it currently does not.<br>
<br>
I'm aware that some people need a GC with shorter pause times. We'll probably put that on the roadmap at some point.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br><font color="#888888">
Simon<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>