How to destroy arrays

[Sarfraz Hooda]

Hi,

I have created an array of Objects in a collection. I was wondering is there
a way to destroy the array to free up the space in the memory ? or they are
automatically destroyed and garbagge collected by .Net framework?

Sarfraz

[Scott M.]

Everything in .NET is a type (either reference or value types). All types
are managed by the Garbage Collector. There is no need to "free up memory"
as this is the purpose of the GC. There are certain circumstances though,
when you may want the object in question to fall out of scope immediately,
rather than waiting for the end of a procedure. In this case you could make
the object = Nothing.
"Sarfraz Hooda" <sh****@iqueri. com> wrote in message
news:Od******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

Hi,

I have created an array of Objects in a collection. I was wondering is there a way to destroy the array to free up the space in the memory ? or they are automatically destroyed and garbagge collected by .Net framework?

Sarfraz

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Scott M. <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote:

Everything in .NET is a type (either reference or value types). All types
are managed by the Garbage Collector. There is no need to "free up memory"
as this is the purpose of the GC. There are certain circumstances though,
when you may want the object in question to fall out of scope immediately,
rather than waiting for the end of a procedure. In this case you could make
the object = Nothing.

Usually that's unnecessary, however, as the garbage collector can tell
when a variable is last used in the IL. Unless you're in a particularly
special case (eg where a variable is used in the first iteration of a
long loop, and not thereafter) it's best not to clutter up your code
setting variables to null/Nothing.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Jon,

Maybe this is higher English; however can you tell me where your message is
different from that from Scott?

I found Scotts message very clear and I agree completely with him in the way
he wrote it.

Cor

Everything in .NET is a type (either reference or value types). All types are managed by the Garbage Collector. There is no need to "free up memory" as this is the purpose of the GC. There are certain circumstances though, when you may want the object in question to fall out of scope immediately, rather than waiting for the end of a procedure. In this case you could make the object = Nothing.

Usually that's unnecessary, however, as the garbage collector can tell
when a variable is last used in the IL. Unless you're in a particularly
special case (eg where a variable is used in the first iteration of a
long loop, and not thereafter) it's best not to clutter up your code
setting variables to null/Nothing.

[Brian Davis]

In addition, VB has an Erase statement, which should deallocate memory used
for the array's elements.

Brian Davis
http://www.knowdotnet.com

"Scott M." <s-***@nospam.nosp am> wrote in message
news:eS******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..

Everything in .NET is a type (either reference or value types). All types
are managed by the Garbage Collector. There is no need to "free up memory" as this is the purpose of the GC. There are certain circumstances though,
when you may want the object in question to fall out of scope immediately,
rather than waiting for the end of a procedure. In this case you could make the object = Nothing.
"Sarfraz Hooda" <sh****@iqueri. com> wrote in message
news:Od******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

Hi,

I have created an array of Objects in a collection. I was wondering is

there

a way to destroy the array to free up the space in the memory ? or they

are

automatically destroyed and garbagge collected by .Net framework?

Sarfraz

[Niki Estner]

I think it's about code like:

{
SomeBigObject x = new SomeBigObject() ;
DoSomethingWith X(x);
// x = null;
DoSomethingElse ThatTakesReally LongButDoesntUs eX();
}

Now, (as far as I got him) Jon tried to explain that there's NO use in
setting "x" to null/nothing, as the GC can tell it won't get used after line
2 anyway. I didn't read that in the previous post.

Of course, this only applies to local variables.

Niki

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@p lanet.nl> wrote in
news:Oq******** *******@TK2MSFT NGP11.phx.gbl.. .

Hi Jon,

Maybe this is higher English; however can you tell me where your message is different from that from Scott?

I found Scotts message very clear and I agree completely with him in the way he wrote it.

Cor

Everything in .NET is a type (either reference or value types). All types are managed by the Garbage Collector. There is no need to "free up memory" as this is the purpose of the GC. There are certain circumstances though, when you may want the object in question to fall out of scope immediately, rather than waiting for the end of a procedure. In this case you could make the object = Nothing.

Usually that's unnecessary, however, as the garbage collector can tell
when a variable is last used in the IL. Unless you're in a particularly
special case (eg where a variable is used in the first iteration of a
long loop, and not thereafter) it's best not to clutter up your code
setting variables to null/Nothing.

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Niki,

I think not and although Scott did not mention it, what he told can count
even more for globally used objects.

I agree with Scott and Jon that it should not be done normally, however as
Scott already stated I believe that there are circumstances that it can be
done.

Cor

I think it's about code like:

{
SomeBigObject x = new SomeBigObject() ;
DoSomethingWith X(x);
// x = null;
DoSomethingElse ThatTakesReally LongButDoesntUs eX();
}

Now, (as far as I got him) Jon tried to explain that there's NO use in
setting "x" to null/nothing, as the GC can tell it won't get used after line 2 anyway. I didn't read that in the previous post.

Of course, this only applies to local variables.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Cor Ligthert <no**********@p lanet.nl> wrote:

Maybe this is higher English; however can you tell me where your message is
different from that from Scott?

I found Scotts message very clear and I agree completely with him in the way
he wrote it.

Niki's message was spot on. Setting a variable to null/Nothing is less
useful than most people think - even for long-running methods, there
are only a few situations where it's of use.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Niki Estner]

Quoted from Scott M.:

There are certain circumstances though,
when you may want the object in question to fall out of scope immediately,
rather than waiting for the end of a procedure. In this case you could make the object = Nothing.
This implies that usually objects will be garbage collected when they fall
out of scope, that is, at the end of the procedure.
Strictly speaking, that's wrong for both local AND member variables: local
variables might get collected BEFORE the end of the procedure (as Jon
explained), and member variables survive the end of a procedure if they're
not set to null/nothing.

I guess Scott was aware of these facts, but nonetheless, the correction was
ok.

Niki

"Cor Ligthert" <no**********@p lanet.nl> wrote in
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP10.phx.gbl. .. Hi Niki,

I think not and although Scott did not mention it, what he told can count
even more for globally used objects.

I agree with Scott and Jon that it should not be done normally, however as
Scott already stated I believe that there are circumstances that it can be
done.

Cor

I think it's about code like:

{
SomeBigObject x = new SomeBigObject() ;
DoSomethingWith X(x);
// x = null;
DoSomethingElse ThatTakesReally LongButDoesntUs eX();
}

Now, (as far as I got him) Jon tried to explain that there's NO use in
setting "x" to null/nothing, as the GC can tell it won't get used after

line

2 anyway. I didn't read that in the previous post.

Of course, this only applies to local variables.

[Cor Ligthert]

Hi Jon,

Constructive quoting again from you, I once gave you a sample that more
people can do that however decent people do not do that.

Leaving the message from Scott out from this makes it the same as if Scott
was telling that the Tower Bridge was in Paris.

The message you give the same answer again as Scott was saying, while you
give the idea that he did not.

Maybe this is higher English; however can you tell me where your message is different from that from Scott?

I found Scotts message very clear and I agree completely with him in the way he wrote it.

Niki's message was spot on. Setting a variable to null/Nothing is less
useful than most people think - even for long-running methods, there
are only a few situations where it's of use.