5 ms·

In a lot of fields, it's more important to have a codebase that's easier to use and more flexible than a codebase that uses less memory. This is why people opt

In a lot of fields, it's more important to have a codebase that's easier to use and more flexible than a codebase that uses less memory. This is why people opt for GC and why it's such a big benefit.

tjoff 4y ago
I'm not really talking about memory requirements. And I don't see how a GC would make any difference in terms of ease of use or flexibility of a codebase. It is a mindset about memory, but you have to have a mindset about memory anyway so it isn't exactly unique.
- worik 4y ago
  It is important to have a code base that an inexperienced programmer can work on. Keeping track of memory is one of the hardest parts of programming in languages like C, a bit easier in C++ (thanks RAII) but still memory leaks are rampant. Rust improves in some aspects, but I do not think it is a language for inexperienced programmers. So where garbage collection pauses are tolerable, and real time performance not an issue, save the money and use garbage collection. I too hate garbage collectors, I want to be in control. But the business case is clear: garbage collected languages are a better choice in a lot, f not most, cases.
  - tene 4y ago
    For most people working a career as a programmer, how much of their time in that career is going to be spent as an inexperienced beginner programmer? I agree that Rust is a professional tool, designed for professional use. It's designed for professional use, instead of being optimized for inexperienced beginners like Python is. I just don't really see "inexperienced beginners can easily contribute productively to this code base" as something that would have been valuable for any of the professional work I've done over the past couple of decades of my career. If you're an amateur, or if you're programming recreationally, or if you're writing some low-reliability low-impact throwaway code, sure, it's great to use happy-path-oriented languages. When you want to write something that people actually rely on to run a business, you should use professional-grade tools instead.
- verdagon 4y ago
  In a language like Rust, one has to carefully orchestrate the dance between Ship, &mut Ship, and &Ship... and Rc<Ship> and RefCell<Ship> and Cell<Ship> and Rc<RefCell<Ship>> and Box<Ship>. In the kind of programming most people do, that is harder than GC which doesn't have any of those distinctions. It's all just Ship. If that isn't hard to you, it's probably because you've gotten so used to that mental overhead that you don't notice the drag any more, or because it's worth it for your case so you don't feel it. More power to you, but the rest of programmers don't want to have to deal with that, and don't need to. They'd rather get the feature done and go home to their families.
  - tjoff 4y ago
    The point is that the mental overhead with memory must always be there. Why not let the language guide you? Sure, they'll get the feature "done". And then they'll suffer for it later, adding up to much more work and a much less rewarding code base than if they'll done it properly in the first place.
dataangel 4y ago
It's way more than just a memory use problem. Garbage collection trashes the CPU cache, and unless you aggressively use value types you have extra layers of indirection everywhere that trash it even more. GC languages have a deserved reputation for worse performance.

In a lot of fields, it's more important to have a codebase that's easier to use and more flexible than a codebase that uses less memory. This is why people opt for GC and why it's such a big benefit.

tjoff 4y ago

I'm not really talking about memory requirements. And I don't see how a GC would make any difference in terms of ease of use or flexibility of a codebase. It is a mindset about memory, but you have to have a mindset about memory anyway so it isn't exactly unique.

worik 4y ago
It is important to have a code base that an inexperienced programmer can work on. Keeping track of memory is one of the hardest parts of programming in languages like C, a bit easier in C++ (thanks RAII) but still memory leaks are rampant. Rust improves in some aspects, but I do not think it is a language for inexperienced programmers. So where garbage collection pauses are tolerable, and real time performance not an issue, save the money and use garbage collection. I too hate garbage collectors, I want to be in control. But the business case is clear: garbage collected languages are a better choice in a lot, f not most, cases.
- tene 4y ago
  For most people working a career as a programmer, how much of their time in that career is going to be spent as an inexperienced beginner programmer? I agree that Rust is a professional tool, designed for professional use. It's designed for professional use, instead of being optimized for inexperienced beginners like Python is. I just don't really see "inexperienced beginners can easily contribute productively to this code base" as something that would have been valuable for any of the professional work I've done over the past couple of decades of my career. If you're an amateur, or if you're programming recreationally, or if you're writing some low-reliability low-impact throwaway code, sure, it's great to use happy-path-oriented languages. When you want to write something that people actually rely on to run a business, you should use professional-grade tools instead.
verdagon 4y ago
In a language like Rust, one has to carefully orchestrate the dance between Ship, &mut Ship, and &Ship... and Rc<Ship> and RefCell<Ship> and Cell<Ship> and Rc<RefCell<Ship>> and Box<Ship>. In the kind of programming most people do, that is harder than GC which doesn't have any of those distinctions. It's all just Ship. If that isn't hard to you, it's probably because you've gotten so used to that mental overhead that you don't notice the drag any more, or because it's worth it for your case so you don't feel it. More power to you, but the rest of programmers don't want to have to deal with that, and don't need to. They'd rather get the feature done and go home to their families.
- tjoff 4y ago
  The point is that the mental overhead with memory must always be there. Why not let the language guide you? Sure, they'll get the feature "done". And then they'll suffer for it later, adding up to much more work and a much less rewarding code base than if they'll done it properly in the first place.

dataangel 4y ago

It's way more than just a memory use problem. Garbage collection trashes the CPU cache, and unless you aggressively use value types you have extra layers of indirection everywhere that trash it even more. GC languages have a deserved reputation for worse performance.