why allocators are not discussed here

[deadalnix]

On Thursday, 27 June 2013 at 22:50:47 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> Old but perhaps relevant?
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=-1&gid=86782&type=member&item=253295471&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eallendowney%2Ecom%2Fss08%2Fhandouts%2Fberger02reconsidering%2Epdf&urlhash=96TJ&goback=%2Egmr_86782%2Egde_86782_member_253295471
>
> (It's an academic article about memory allocation from 2002)

Interesting paper. Still concurrency isn't really addressed, 
which is a problem to be future proof.