4 ms·

I'd like to see evidence for this. the JVM has been great at stack allocation for over a decade [1][2]. [1] http://www.stefankrause.net/wp/?p=64 http://www.ste

I'd like to see evidence for this. the JVM has been great at stack allocation for over a decade [1][2]. [1] http://www.stefankrause.net/wp/?p=64 http://www.stefankrause.net/wp/?p=64 [2] http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp09275/ http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-jtp09275/

geodel 11y ago
It is straightforward because Go has first class value types which are most likely to be on stack vs Java where everything except primitives are reference type which are most likely to be on heap. Also Java data structures are really bloated. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/publicity/pldi09tutorials/memory-efficient-java-tutorial.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/publicity/pldi09tutorials/me...
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Back when Java was introduced I was disappointed that they decided to ignore value types, specifically given that Cedar, Modula-3, Eiffel and Oberon variants all had them. Also that they went VM instead of AOT like those languages main implementations. Oh well, at least they are now on the roadmap for Java 10, 30 years later.
mike_hearn 11y ago
"Great" is pushing it a bit. The JVM will not do inter-procedural escape analysis unless the called method is inlined into the callee and so the compiler can treat it as a single method for optimisation purposes. So forget about stack allocating an object high up the call stack even if it's only used lower down and could theoretically have been done so. That said, JVMs do not actually stack allocate anything. They do a smarter optimisation called scalar replacement. The object is effectively decomposed into local variables that are then subject to further optimisation, for instance, completely deleting a field that isn't used. Value types will be added to the JVM eventually in the Valhalla project. Go fans may note here that Go has value types, but this is a dodge - the bulk of the work being done so far in Valhalla is a major upgrade of the support for generics, because the Java (and .NET) teams believe that value types without generic specialisation is a fairly useless feature. If they didn't do that you could have MyValueType[] as an array, but not a List<MyValueType> or Map<String, MyValueType> which would make it fairly useless. Go gets around this problem by simply not letting users define their own generic data structures and baking a few simple ones into the language itself. This is hardly a solution.

geodel 11y ago

It is straightforward because Go has first class value types which are most likely to be on stack vs Java where everything except primitives are reference type which are most likely to be on heap. Also Java data structures are really bloated. https://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/publicity/pldi09tutorials/memory-efficient-java-tutorial.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/publicity/pldi09tutorials/me...

pjmlp 11y ago
Back when Java was introduced I was disappointed that they decided to ignore value types, specifically given that Cedar, Modula-3, Eiffel and Oberon variants all had them. Also that they went VM instead of AOT like those languages main implementations. Oh well, at least they are now on the roadmap for Java 10, 30 years later.

mike_hearn 11y ago

"Great" is pushing it a bit. The JVM will not do inter-procedural escape analysis unless the called method is inlined into the callee and so the compiler can treat it as a single method for optimisation purposes. So forget about stack allocating an object high up the call stack even if it's only used lower down and could theoretically have been done so. That said, JVMs do not actually stack allocate anything. They do a smarter optimisation called scalar replacement. The object is effectively decomposed into local variables that are then subject to further optimisation, for instance, completely deleting a field that isn't used. Value types will be added to the JVM eventually in the Valhalla project. Go fans may note here that Go has value types, but this is a dodge - the bulk of the work being done so far in Valhalla is a major upgrade of the support for generics, because the Java (and .NET) teams believe that value types without generic specialisation is a fairly useless feature. If they didn't do that you could have MyValueType[] as an array, but not a List<MyValueType> or Map<String, MyValueType> which would make it fairly useless. Go gets around this problem by simply not letting users define their own generic data structures and baking a few simple ones into the language itself. This is hardly a solution.