> The evidence [0,1,2] seems more like: Given enough memory, GC is faster.
You really have to take Appel papers with a large grain of salt in 2015. Caches and multithreading have come to dominate nowadays, and assuming that all memory access is equal isn't reasonable.
Also, the first paper doesn't make the claim that GC is faster than manual memory management—in fact, manual memory management was faster.
> A garbage collector has the freedom to delay the free, which means potential for optimization.
People commonly say this, but I don't see how a malloc couldn't do the same thing if it actually helped. Malloc implementations typically don't do delayed reclamation because it doesn't help; if it did help, they would do it. But cache is king, and prompt reuse of space is most important nowadays.
You really have to take Appel papers with a large grain of salt in 2015. Caches and multithreading have come to dominate nowadays, and assuming that all memory access is equal isn't reasonable.
Also, the first paper doesn't make the claim that GC is faster than manual memory management—in fact, manual memory management was faster.
> A garbage collector has the freedom to delay the free, which means potential for optimization.
People commonly say this, but I don't see how a malloc couldn't do the same thing if it actually helped. Malloc implementations typically don't do delayed reclamation because it doesn't help; if it did help, they would do it. But cache is king, and prompt reuse of space is most important nowadays.