5 ms·
This seems to be a total non-sequitur from the previous comment. What does this have to do with arenas versus other memory allocation strategies? And in what wa
by mwcampbell 4y ago
This seems to be a total non-sequitur from the previous comment. What does this have to do with arenas versus other memory allocation strategies? And in what way are hardware architectures being expected to accommodate Rust?
- benreesman 4y agoFor as long as sequential locality is the order of the day, bump allocators are on average going to stomp stack/heap dichotomies like C++ or Rust. By huge, huge, constant factors. I’m proposing Jai (and John) as plausibly more in touch with a rapidly-changing hardware landscape than Rust by definition practically ever could be without another round of pre-1.0 “everything is broken always”. Were you earnestly asking that question in good faith because you didn’t read the multiple siblings about Jai and arenas vs affine? Or are you just part of the gang tackle?
- mwcampbell 4y ago> Were you earnestly asking that question in good faith Yes, because although I read the whole thread, I didn't get the connection between arenas and the rapidly changing hardware landscape. Now I want to learn more. And, as someone who merely uses Rust in some projects and thinks it's likely to be the least bad alternative for some others, I have no problem contemplating that Rust might have chosen a suboptimal default allocation style. I think the borrow checker is still a good thing though, and don't understand how it could be fully replaced by arena allocation.