Subject: DIY: 20% off Protective Coating

From: One Step Process <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:44:04 -0700

Floor Coatings Rewards Issued [Id No. 7962r4966]
(Residential & Commercial Use)

Greetings Atompub-archive,

DIY Summer Rewards are now available for you. 
Confirm Your rewards below. 

(1) New Floor Coatings Package for [email-masked]

Redeem Here -> http://www.pawtask.com/redeem/rewards.html
[Rewards Id 14-8512545252]

Home DIY Rewards
Rewards Set to Expire soon

----------------------------
Garages, Floors & WallsBars & NightclubsWooden Decks, Basements, Roofs & Walls,Kitchens & Restaurant Facilities,Warehouses and Parking Garages, Manufacturing Facilities,Auto Body & Repair Shops 
And More -> http://www.pawtask.com/redeem/rewards.html

Send Notification change request to - Current Update Alert at 1644 Doral Dr Brookings, SD 57006
or http://www.pawtask.com/35rgy.ergtr44

find it funny that on most answers people are looking for those edge cases and tricks and seem to be completely missing the point (IMO). They could just show code that keep useless references to objects that will never use again, and at the same time never drop those references; one may say those cases are not "true" memory leaks because there are still references to those objects around, but if the program never use those references again and also never drop them, it is completely equivalent to (and as bad as) a "true memory leak".   ehabkost Jul 22 '11 at 6:14
30	  	
@Darien: can't believe such Java fanboism in your answer. For a start JVMs do have memory leaks (the Apple JVM leaking memory when you work with BufferedImage, even if you do flush() them, comes to mind) then it's all too easy to create memory leak "by accident". The famous old "Sun VM + Hibernate + Tomcat" SNAFU comes to mind: this one has plagued Java for years (and is not unrelated to the most upvoted answer here). So not only does Java have memory leak, they're also often much worse than in C/C++ because of people like you thinking "nothing to  to the OP and yet I got attacked and insulted for asking if "Go" had the same issue. Somehow I'm not sure that all wiki-thing is working that great.   SyntaxT3rr0r Jul 22 '11 at 11:37
41	  	
@SyntaxT3rr0r - darien's answer is not fanboyism. he explicitly admitted that certain JVMs can have bugs that mean memory gets leaked. this is different than the language spec itself allowing for memory leaks.   Peter Recore Jul 22 '11 at 15:24
  	  	
more than 20k views in 2 days or less?
 It was linked on Reddit, so that's probably driven a lot of views. (And of course, everybody there is having the same problem with the distinction between a memory leak versus just cruddy program logic.)   Darien Jul 22 '11 at 18:14 
 No, they are not equivalent. (1) You possess the ability to reclaim the memory, whereas in a "true leak" your C/C++ program forgets the range that was allocated, there's no safe way to recover. (2) You can very easily detect the problem with profiling, because you can see what objects the "bloat" involves. (3) A "true leak" is an unequivocal error, while a program that keeps lots of objects around until terminated could be a deliberate part of how it is meant to work.   Darien Jul 22 '11 at 18:37 
 (1) "ability" to reclaim the memory is useless if your program never use that ability; on both cases you have to change your source code to do the Right Thing. (2) you can even more easily detect the "true memory leaks" because a tool like Valgrind can tell for sure that the memory is completely lost (so, yes, that's another difference). (3) That's true. But that's why I said "equivalent" not "completely the same situation, without any detectable difference".   ehabkost Jul 22 '11 at 20:25
, defining a special class of leaks is quite easy to me when you have pluggable/redeployable modules, if after a redeploy and full garbage collection a previously loaded class instance remains, it's a leak. Of course, there could be a lot other type like String, byte[] and what not leaks but they manifest themselves too.   bestsss Jul 22 '11 at 23:37