[fpc-pascal] for..in loops?

Florian Klaempfl florian at freepascal.org
Sun Nov 20 14:29:45 CET 2005

Marco van de Voort wrote:

>>>>>never used them.
>>>That's because they are quite limited if you have dynamic, non garbage collected
>>Why? Use them with interfaces if you need garbage collection and it 
>>works perfectly.
> Because that is not the same. A fully GC language can optimize a lot of
> overhead away. GC duck-taped on a native language is not pretty useful. See

With C++ you end also with ref. counted types in the best case. You 
can't do it better. The reason why interfaces are used that those are 
the only automated types which can be used to do everything. GC is 
something completely different. I don't consider interfaces or 
ansistring garbage collected.

> the only big experiment that uses interfaces this way: decal and its
> abmyssal performance.

That's something completely different. Decal's performance is so bad 
because it has no templates.

> One can discuss if it comes back to native level as the .NET and Java
> advocatist claim ( I don't), but no matter what you think about that
> subject, native-with-gc is worse.
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list