3 ms·
I'm pretty sure modern garbage collectors don't have that "stop the world" behaviour that causes unresponsiveness. And tens of millions of J2ME-capable phones
by samstokes 16y ago
I'm pretty sure modern garbage collectors don't have that "stop the world" behaviour that causes unresponsiveness. And tens of millions of J2ME-capable phones have been running garbage collectors for years. (And while J2ME has a reputation for slowness, that's mostly about startup time, and anyway it's largely due to bad coding rather than the runtime being inherently slow. Opera Mini and the J2ME version of Google Maps are both more responsive than many "native" apps.)
- ori_b 16y agoMany of them do have stop-the-world GC. A well implemented stop the world GC allows higher throughput, at the cost of increased latency. This is especially the case when provably-local allocations can be put onto a thread-local heap, and you only do stop-the-thread GC on those. So, in the absolute sense, stop-the-world GC overhead is lower than incremental, low-latency GC. But yes, we have GC that is fairly responsive these days, too, for when throughput isn't the driving concern.