From my understanding, the weak generational hypothesis holds for the majority of programs in general. In fact, it is particularly true of language that encourage immutable data ( because new data is created rather than existing data updated). I don't see why it would apply particularly to OO languages, in fact, I would assume that passing pointers around would result in less short-lived objects due to less copying.
From my understanding, the weak generational hypothesis holds for the majority of programs in general.
But in Smalltalk like languages, the GC has to deal with "all of it," including objects that were allocated "on the stack." Because in most cases, outside of optimized cases like SmallInteger, my understanding is that objects allocated on the heap no matter what, and only that pointer reference was allocated on the stack.
It applied very well to Smalltalk. But there was a tendency to have objects for everything, and even a stack allocation meant a heap allocation.
I don't see why it would apply particularly to OO languages, in fact, I would assume that passing pointers around would result in less short-lived objects due to less copying.
Composition facilitated by object reference can result in styles where the granularity is small, so there are lots of objects. When a new user defined Object mans a new allocation on the heap, this means a lot throughput for the GC.
