3 ms·
Most of the article is about GC being a set trade-offs. I don't think that's an elephant here. The official promotional wording around Go is being criticised fo
by sambe 10y ago
Most of the article is about GC being a set trade-offs. I don't think that's an elephant here. The official promotional wording around Go is being criticised for not acknowledging the drawbacks of the approach.
- geodel 10y agoStrange argument in the article. As I do not see Official Java materials are telling us about Java's massive memory bloat in typical data structures as this: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/publicity/pldi09tutorials/memory-efficient-java-tutorial.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/kim/publicity/pldi09tutorials/me...
- mike_hearn 10y agoI suppose it depends what you consider official Java materials, but the presentations about Project Valhalla and the future of the JVM (by the official Java team) do discuss that sort of thing extensively. However, this discussion is about GC, not generics specialisation. Java has a guidebook explaining the tradeoffs and how to configure your collector: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/vm/gctuning/toc.html https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/vm/gc...
- geodel 10y agoIn this case official would be like Oracle release new version of Java with statements in release news like "We continue to have significant memory bloat in standard Java Collection data structures. We added a higher overhead and slower G1 GC which will be default going forward. In Java 9 we also hope to break many user programs which depends on Sun internal APIs" Now this sounds ridiculous because announcement of major product/feature are suppose to highlight advantages just like Go's new GC announcement blog. Tradeoffs are discussed in mailing lists and bug trackers.
- _ak 10y agoOh, they have acknowledged drawbacks from the very beginning, they just never deemed them nearly as important as the author of this blog post.