Comparative Analysis of Classic Garbage-Collection Algorithms for a Lisp-like Language

AI-generated keywords: Garbage Collection Algorithms Lisp-like Languages Cheney's Copy Algorithm Memory Management

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • The paper investigates the effectiveness of Cheney's Copy Algorithm for a Lisp-like system
  • The authors compare several garbage-collection algorithms, including Cheney's Algorithm, Mark and Sweep Algorithm, and Knuth's Classical Lisp 2 Algorithm
  • The analysis is conducted within a custom MicroLisp environment
  • Cheney's algorithm is found to be more effective than Mark-Sweep in terms of memory management in Lisp-like languages
  • The research contributes to our understanding of garbage-collection algorithms in Lisp-like languages
  • Valuable insights are provided into optimizing memory management in such systems
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Tyler Hannan, Chester Holtz, Jonathan Liao

14 pages, 6 figures

Abstract: In this paper, we demonstrate the effectiveness of Cheney's Copy Algorithm for a Lisp-like system and experimentally show the infeasability of developing an optimal garbage collector for general use. We summarize and compare several garbage-collection algorithms including Cheney's Algorithm, the canonical Mark and Sweep Algorithm, and Knuth's Classical Lisp 2 Algorithm. We implement and analyze these three algorithms in the context of a custom MicroLisp environment. We conclude and present the core considerations behind the development of a garbage collector---specifically for Lisp---and make an attempt to investigate these issues in depth. We also discuss experimental results that imply the effectiveness of Cheney's algorithm over Mark-Sweep for Lisp-like languages.

Submitted to arXiv on 30 Apr. 2015

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1505.00017v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In the paper "Comparative Analysis of Classic Garbage-Collection Algorithms for a Lisp-like Language," Tyler Hannan, Chester Holtz, and Jonathan Liao investigate the effectiveness of Cheney's Copy Algorithm for a Lisp-like system. They also explore the feasibility of developing an optimal garbage collector for general use. The authors summarize and compare several garbage-collection algorithms, including Cheney's Algorithm, the canonical Mark and Sweep Algorithm, and Knuth's Classical Lisp 2 Algorithm. To conduct their analysis, the authors implement and analyze these three algorithms within a custom MicroLisp environment. They aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the core considerations behind the development of a garbage collector specifically designed for Lisp. The paper presents experimental results that demonstrate how Cheney's algorithm is more effective than Mark-Sweep in terms of memory management in Lisp-like languages. The authors discuss these findings in depth and highlight their implications for garbage collection in Lisp systems. Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of garbage-collection algorithms in Lisp-like languages and provides valuable insights into optimizing memory management in such systems.
Created on 06 Nov. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.