4 ms·

> I don't think you know what "no true scotsman" means--I'm not asserting that Go's GC is the "true GC" At no point in invoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

> I don't think you know what "no true scotsman" means--I'm not asserting that Go's GC is the "true GC" At no point in invoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman does one bother to define what a true scotsman is, only what it is not by way of handwaving away any example of problems with a category by implying the category excludes them. It's exactly what you've done when you state "People who argue against GC are almost always arguing against" some ancient, nonmodern, unoptimized GC. Modern GCs have perf issues in some categories too. > As such, it's inadequate to refute GC in general on the basis of long pauses and lots of garbage, you must refute each GC (or at least each type/class of GC) individually. I do not intend to refute the value of GCs in general. I will happily use GCs in some cases. I intend to refute your overbroad generalization of the anti-GC camp, for which specific examples are sufficient. > Also, you can see how cherry-picking pathological, worst-case examples doesn't inform us about the normative case, right? My examples are neither pathological nor worst case. They need not be normative - but for what it's worth, they do exemplify the normative case of my own experiences in game development across multiple projects with different teams at different studios, when language level GCs were used for general purpouses, despite being bypassed for bulk data. It's also exactly what titzer was complaining was missing upthread: > I've seen this sentiment a lot, and I never see specifics. "GC is bad for systems language" is an unsupported, tribalist, firmly-held belief that is unsupported by hard data.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> At no point in invoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman does one bother to define what a true scotsman is, only what it is not by way of handwaving away any example of problems with a category by implying the category excludes them. It's exactly what you've done when you state "People who argue against GC are almost always arguing against" some ancient, nonmodern, unoptimized GC. Yes, that is how a NTS works, which is why you should be able to see that my argument isn't one. If I had said the common criticism of GCs ("they have long pause times") is invalid because the only True GC is a low-latency GC, then I would have made an NTS argument. But instead I argued that the common criticism of GCs doesn't refute GCs categorically as GC critics believe, it only refutes high-latency GCs. I'm not arguing that True GCs are modern, optimized, etc, only that some GCs are modern and optimized and the conventional anti-GC arguments/assumptions ("long pause times") don't always apply.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> At no point in invoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman does one bother to define what a true scotsman is, only what it is not by way of handwaving away any example of problems with a category by implying the category excludes them. It's exactly what you've done when you state "People who argue against GC are almost always arguing against" some ancient, nonmodern, unoptimized GC. Yes, that is how a NTS works, which is why you should be able to see that my argument isn't one. If I had said the common criticism of GCs ("they have long pause times") is invalid because the only True GC is a low-latency GC, then I would have made an NTS argument. But instead I argued that the common criticism of GCs doesn't refute GCs categorically as GC critics believe, it only refutes high-latency GCs. I'm not arguing that True GCs are modern, optimized, etc, only that some GCs are modern and optimized and the conventional anti-GC arguments/assumptions ("long pause times") don't always apply.