4 ms·

> This depends on implementation. ZGC is not generational yet, but I don’t see how generational or not would invalidate a GC benchmark for the default implement

> This depends on implementation. ZGC is not generational yet, but I don’t see how generational or not would invalidate a GC benchmark for the default implementation. I never said the benchmark was invalidated, I said that you interpreted the meaning of the benchmark wrong. I like how your reply completely ignored what I said the benchmark meant. That benchmark has a very narrow focus, and generational makes a huge difference for that one benchmark. > And honestly if I was in Vegas I’d still bet that ZGC (Java’s non-generational, latency sensitive GC) would beat Go’s implementation here. I would love to see a holistic set of benchmarks comparing them. Even just that one very narrow benchmark you linked would be fun to see — if ZGC is so good, surely one of the implementations of the benchmark on the website is using ZGC? But I haven’t had time to dig through them. But, part of Go’s charm is that idiomatic code rarely puts tons of pressure on the GC anyways, and a GC can never be faster than stack allocation for a multitude of reasons… which is also why C# has value types.

jdc 4y ago
Java's value types will be ready soon enough: https://openjdk.org/projects/valhalla https://openjdk.org/projects/valhalla
- coder543 4y ago
  I hope it happens soon! But, if I understood correctly, that design both requires you to explicitly mark a type as a value type when you define it and it doesn’t support inheritance, so I’m skeptical that it will see any real adoption for a long time. Java hasn’t had decades to develop a culture around this feature the way that C# has, and neither are like Go where everything is value typed unless it is one of the built in pointer types, or you explicitly put the value behind a pointer. (The pointers themselves are values, of course, but I think few people are interested in that distinction here.) Go isn’t perfect by a long shot, I just don’t think adding the millionth keyword is going to be a silver bullet for Java’s predisposition towards GC pressure.
  - kaba0 4y ago
    Java’s standard lib has been planned with value types in mind for some time now, plenty of classes will be able to take advantage of them. Also, inheritance is not rampant in Java, at least not in classes that are so numerous that value types would help them. Also, Java is an exceedingly small language, so the millionth keyword comment is unwarranted.
    - coder543 4y ago
      > Also, Java is an exceedingly small language, so the millionth keyword comment is unwarranted. Small compared to what? Java and C++ are extremely competitive in feature bloat, and I can hardly think of anything that is comparable to them. Even C# has a smaller surface area, in my opinion, even though it manages to implement a variety of useful features that Java currently lacks (like async/await and value types), but C# is still a large language — no doubt about it. C# just manages the interactions of its features better than Java, in my opinion, which makes it feel simpler. I have honestly never heard anyone call Java a small language. It is far from that! > Java’s standard lib has been planned with value types in mind for some time now, plenty of classes will be able to take advantage of them. Aren’t the majority of the standard container types using some form of inheritance? That’s what I recall, and that rules them out.
      - kaba0 4y ago
        What?? C++ is perhaps the biggest language I can think of followed by Swift. C# is well on the path of C++. But Java? It only has classes, inheritance (no multiple inheritance as c++), interfaces, objects which are instances of said classes, 7 primitive types and I am basically at the end of java’s feature list. Lambdas are often hated because they were implemented at first as classes with a single method (they no longer compile to that), so they are syntactic sugar only in a way. Classes can have static methods as well, and there are 3 visibility modifiers (which are also language feature of Go, just implicit in naming convention). Everything else is library calls in the language.
        4y ago
- morelisp 4y ago
  They'll be ready soon I guess, but "soon enough" would have had to be 5-6 years ago when we started shipping.

jdc 4y ago

Java's value types will be ready soon enough: https://openjdk.org/projects/valhalla https://openjdk.org/projects/valhalla

coder543 4y ago
I hope it happens soon! But, if I understood correctly, that design both requires you to explicitly mark a type as a value type when you define it and it doesn’t support inheritance, so I’m skeptical that it will see any real adoption for a long time. Java hasn’t had decades to develop a culture around this feature the way that C# has, and neither are like Go where everything is value typed unless it is one of the built in pointer types, or you explicitly put the value behind a pointer. (The pointers themselves are values, of course, but I think few people are interested in that distinction here.) Go isn’t perfect by a long shot, I just don’t think adding the millionth keyword is going to be a silver bullet for Java’s predisposition towards GC pressure.
- kaba0 4y ago
  Java’s standard lib has been planned with value types in mind for some time now, plenty of classes will be able to take advantage of them. Also, inheritance is not rampant in Java, at least not in classes that are so numerous that value types would help them. Also, Java is an exceedingly small language, so the millionth keyword comment is unwarranted.
  - coder543 4y ago
    > Also, Java is an exceedingly small language, so the millionth keyword comment is unwarranted. Small compared to what? Java and C++ are extremely competitive in feature bloat, and I can hardly think of anything that is comparable to them. Even C# has a smaller surface area, in my opinion, even though it manages to implement a variety of useful features that Java currently lacks (like async/await and value types), but C# is still a large language — no doubt about it. C# just manages the interactions of its features better than Java, in my opinion, which makes it feel simpler. I have honestly never heard anyone call Java a small language. It is far from that! > Java’s standard lib has been planned with value types in mind for some time now, plenty of classes will be able to take advantage of them. Aren’t the majority of the standard container types using some form of inheritance? That’s what I recall, and that rules them out.
    - kaba0 4y ago
      What?? C++ is perhaps the biggest language I can think of followed by Swift. C# is well on the path of C++. But Java? It only has classes, inheritance (no multiple inheritance as c++), interfaces, objects which are instances of said classes, 7 primitive types and I am basically at the end of java’s feature list. Lambdas are often hated because they were implemented at first as classes with a single method (they no longer compile to that), so they are syntactic sugar only in a way. Classes can have static methods as well, and there are 3 visibility modifiers (which are also language feature of Go, just implicit in naming convention). Everything else is library calls in the language.
      - 4y ago
morelisp 4y ago
They'll be ready soon I guess, but "soon enough" would have had to be 5-6 years ago when we started shipping.