Developer Tools Kickoff - session 300.In:WWDC 2011.Apple, Inc.,24.Juni 2011,abgerufen am 27.März 2015(englisch):„“At the top of your wishlist of things we could do for you is bringing garbage collection to iOS. And that is exactly what we are not going to do… Unfortunately garbage collection has a suboptimal impact on performance. Garbage can build up in your applications and increase the high water mark of your memory usage. And the collector tends to kick in at undeterministic times which can lead to very high CPU usage and stutters in the user experience. And that’s why GC has not been acceptable to us on our mobile platforms. In comparison, manual memory management with retain/release is harder to learn, and quite frankly it’s a bit of a pain in the ass. But it produces better and more predictable performance, and that’s why we have chosen it as the basis of our memory management strategy. Because out there in the real world, high performance and stutter-free user experiences are what matters to our users.”“
Rob Napier, Mugunth Kumar:iOS 6 Programming Pushing the Limit.John Wiley & Sons,20.November 2012,abgerufen am 30.März 2015(englisch):„"ARC is not garbage collection [...] this makes the code behave the way the programmer intended it to but without an extra garbage collection step. Memory is reclaimed faster than with garbage collection and decision are done at compile time rather than at run-time, which generally improves overall performance."“
Felix Disselhoff:Nur 1 GB RAM?! Warum das iPhone 6 die Androiden abhängt.curved.de,17.November 2014,abgerufen am 22.September 2018:„Warum ist das iPhone mit nur 1 GB RAM schneller als die Android-Konkurrenz mit 2 oder 3 GB RAM? Die Erklärung ist einfach und hat mit “Müll” zu tun. […] Android braucht das Vielfache des verwendeten Speichers“
The Clang Team:AutomaticReferenceCounting.In:Clang 3.7. Documentation.Abgerufen am 31.Mai 2015(englisch):„It does not provide a cycle collector; users must explicitly manage the lifetime of their objects, breaking cycles manually or with weak or unsafe references.“
Benjamin Zorn:The Measured Cost of Conservative Garbage Collection.Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado Boulder,22.Januar 1993,abgerufen am 18.November 2012(englisch):„Conservative garbage collection does not come without a cost. In the programs measured, the garbage collection algorithm used 30–150 per cent more address space than the most space efficient explicit management algorithm. In addition, the conservative garbage collection algorithm significantly reduced the reference locality of the programs, greatly increasing the page fault rate and cache miss rate of the applications for a large range of cache and memory sizes. This result suggests that not only does the conservative garbage collection algorithm increase the size of the address space, but also frequently references the entire space it requires.“
Arne Schäpers, Rudolf Huttary:Daniel Düsentrieb - C#, Java, C++ und Delphi im Effizienztest, Teil 2.c’t,Dezember 2003,S.222–227,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am12.Dezember 2015;abgerufen am 26.Oktober 2009:„"Die Ergebnisse zeigen erstens, dass ein Garbage Collector (bei der Destruktion) vom Laufzeitverhalten her keine spürbaren Nachteile zu bringen scheint" und "Der teilweise schon fast doppelte Zeitbedarf von C++ bei der Konstruktion gegenüber den anderen Kandidaten..."“
José R.C. Cruz:Automatic Reference Counting on iOS.Dr. Dobbs,22.Mai 2012,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am16.August 2012;abgerufen am 30.März 2015(englisch):„“Finally, the [Garbage collection] service still incurs a performance hit despite being conservative. This is one reason why garbage collection is absent on iOS.[…] ARC is an innovative approach that has many of the benefits of garbage collection, but without the performance costs. Internally, ARC is not a runtime service. It is, in fact, a deterministic two-part phase provided by the new Clang front-end.”“
Robert Hundt:Loop Recognition in C++/Java/Go/Scala.(PDF; 318kB)Scala Days 2011,27.April 2011,abgerufen am 17.November 2012(englisch,Stanford, California):„Java shows a large GC component, but a good code performance. [...] We find that in regards to performance, C++ wins out by a large margin. [...] The Java version was probably the simplest to implement, but the hardest to analyze for performance. Specifically the effects around garbage collection were complicated and very hard to tune“
Matthew Hertz, Emery D. Berger:Quantifying the Performance of Garbage Collection vs. Explicit Memory Management.OOPSLA 2005,2005,abgerufen am 15.März 2015(englisch):„In particular, when garbage collection has five times as much memory as required, its runtime performance matches or slightly exceeds that of explicit memory management. However, garbage collection’s performance degrades substantially when it must use smaller heaps. With three times as much memory, it runs 17% slower on average, and with twice as much memory, it runs 70% slower.“
Arne Schäpers, Rudolf Huttary:Daniel Düsentrieb - C#, Java, C++ und Delphi im Effizienztest, Teil 2.c’t,Dezember 2003,S.222–227,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am12.Dezember 2015;abgerufen am 26.Oktober 2009:„"Die Ergebnisse zeigen erstens, dass ein Garbage Collector (bei der Destruktion) vom Laufzeitverhalten her keine spürbaren Nachteile zu bringen scheint" und "Der teilweise schon fast doppelte Zeitbedarf von C++ bei der Konstruktion gegenüber den anderen Kandidaten..."“
José R.C. Cruz:Automatic Reference Counting on iOS.Dr. Dobbs,22.Mai 2012,archiviertvomOriginal(nicht mehr online verfügbar)am16.August 2012;abgerufen am 30.März 2015(englisch):„“Finally, the [Garbage collection] service still incurs a performance hit despite being conservative. This is one reason why garbage collection is absent on iOS.[…] ARC is an innovative approach that has many of the benefits of garbage collection, but without the performance costs. Internally, ARC is not a runtime service. It is, in fact, a deterministic two-part phase provided by the new Clang front-end.”“
