|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Memory management article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Dynamic memory allocation was copied or moved into Memory management with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Dynamic memory allocation.|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.|
- 1 YUP
- 2 Dynamic memory allocation in various languages
- 3 Garbage collection
- 4 What happened
- 5 This Article is Horrible.
- 6 merge with Dynamic memory management
- 7 Coalescing Merger complete
- 8 "userland" memory management vs. OS memory management
- 9 Heap (programming)
- 10 Proposed Merger with Memory management (operating systems)
- 11 Scope of this article
This really is a terrible article. Its ridiculously saturated with junk and could fall apart at any time, and probably should, it makes a vast variety of claims on how all these systems are tied together without even mentioning the application layer, and is written in sloppy stereotypical granulated oxford lecture style. I've gone through and fixed some of it, but its an oddly useless factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeekMelange (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Dynamic memory allocation in various languages
i was really wondering how would if i insert a section about Comparison table of Dynamic Memory Allocation in various languages such as in java, c++, python, pascal etc. That will give glimpse that how one can allocate memory dynamically in different languages.
Prashantgonarkar (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I quite disagree with the definition of Garbage collection (GC) given here.ie
It says : "Garbage collection is the automated allocation and deallocation of computer memory resources for a program." For me, the role of the garbage collector is to reclaim garbage but not to allocate memory. Allocating memory automatically is the goal of a memory allocator.
I would like to change this (if everyone agree) to : "Garbage collection is the automated deallocation of unused computer memory resources for a program."
What do you think ?
--Arnaud 10:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
what happened in this article?
--Dowclo 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article got vandalized; no big deal, we have to put up with it every day. All edits made to Wikipedia are kept, you can use the "history" tab to see the changes. (I reformatted your comment a bit, I hope you don't mind). -- intgr 23:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- it is appreciate you corrected my formatting, but you didn't fix the problem, when i went to the article, my firefox just get freezed, then i forbid the wikipedia's script, but the CPU usage still went to 100%, when i switch to maxthon(a IE shell) then the situation got a little bit better(in first couple sec the CPU usage is still 100%) --Dowclo 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are viewing a cached copy of the page; did you try refreshing it? -- intgr 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- hehe, the article is clean now ^_^ (i went to the article after i saw your post, by the time the problem was still at there -__-b) --Dowclo 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This Article is Horrible.
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
- If you want somebody else to do this work for you, you could at least be constructive in your criticism, i.e. what in particular you found confusing or inaccurate. -- intgr [talk] 08:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
merge with Dynamic memory management
- This article discusses a concept? It seems to me to be discussing a variety of things with which the name "memory management" could, in theory, be associated - relocation and protection (which sounds as if they're disussing virtual memory), sharing, modules, and DOS memory managers. Guy Harris (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I give up, my English is not that good. I agree that article covers several topics in the sense that the discussed subjects are quite different. However, they are not entirely unrelated, and memory management fits well to define the scope that encompasses all these topics. Dynamic memory allocation also falls within that scope, so I think we should merge that content to this article.
- Unrelatedly, what word should I use as an alias to description that generalizes all discussed topics (memory management in this case)? Scope feels kinda weird in such a context, though I might be totally wrong.1exec1 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Coalescing Merger complete
- I see coalescing (computer science) is currently a stub article; the merge has been undone.
- Should it be re-merged as per the 2011 discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalescing (computer science), or is there some reason to keep it separate? --DavidCary (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- @DavidCary: I don't exactly remember why I undid this merge, but I suppose I did because the merge was carried out poorly. Just a cut-and-paste of the original article into this one. This happens too often when a merge is the result of an AfD outcome, and it tends to reduce the quality of the (sometimes fairly arbitrarily chosen) merge target.
- However, this article should probably mention coalescing, so feel free to undo my undoing. It would be preferable if the text mentioned it in a slightly more natural way, like in the original source , though. —Ruud 09:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
"userland" memory management vs. OS memory management
This article seems to largely (but not entirely) be concerned with techniques used to manage application memory. Is there a place to discuss how the OS manages the computer's physical and/or virtual memory on behalf of the user? I came to this question while updating DOS/360 (I believe) and looking for an appropriate wikilink for "partition". I think there should be an article discussing the methods operating systems have used to manage memory: "all memory" like DOS, IBSYS,etc. Memory "banks" like TOPS-10 segments, fixed partitions (DOS/360, MFT), dynamic allocation like OS/360 MVT, and then a brief discussion of virtual memory - single address space (OS/VS2 SVS and maybe others), segmented virtual memory like Multics, and then multiple address spaces like most current systems. Virtual memory has a pretty good article, but the historical stuff doesn't seem to have a home. Peter Flass (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I created a new article is Memory management (operating systems). Peter Flass (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
188.8.131.52 was right: there is an inbound redirect Heap (programming) , but there is no explanation of it. BTW, various threads on this talk page, and the presence of a dirty JPEG diagram on a very visible spot, certainly indicate that the article is neglected by good, able experts for a long time. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposed Merger with Memory management (operating systems)
- Oppose. I created Memory management (operating systems) after considering adding that material to Memory management. It appeared there was not much overlap. Most of the material in Memory management (operating systems) is really of historical interest, since virtual memory has largely eliminated partitions, etc. Perhaps the choice of name wasn't the greatest. Peter Flass (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Memory management on the operating system level is quite distinct from memory management at the application level. —Ruud 17:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Scope of this article
- ""Memory management" refers to managing memory at the system level, within the hardware and operating system – sorry, but higher levels of memory management (libraries, languages, etc.) do not belong here"
Were you thinking about the separate Memory management (operating systems) article? Because this article seems to discuss application-level memory management as well, and the content you removed seems relevant to app-level memory management, for example "Memory requests are satisfied by allocating portions from a large pool of memory called the heap or free store". The word "heap" is commonly applied to application memory pools.
- Hello! Actually, I had Resource management (computing) article in mind as a possible destination for the addition I've deleted; that article deals specifically with the higher levels of memory management (libraries, languages, garbage collection, etc.), so it should be a much better fit.
- Anyway, I agree that we might have Memory management as a disambiguation page, which should then link to Memory management (system level) (which might be the new name for current Memory management article, any suggestions for a better name?), Memory management (operating systems), and Resource management (computing) articles. However, including Resource management (computing) into that disambiguation page would go against the way it currently fits into the structure established by Resource management (disambiguation).
- Another approach would be to merge Memory management and Memory management (operating systems) under a single Memory management article. In that case, the addition I've deleted would fit perfectly well into the resulting article, while referencing to Resource management (computing) for more general information. This merger approach might be even better, as those two articles aren't lengthy and having them merged would actually improve readability over creating a disambiguation page.
- Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)