2 ms·
I would hope they are, otherwise why are you even writing C++. I might have too high expectations though...
by gpderetta 4y ago
I would hope they are, otherwise why are you even writing C++. I might have too high expectations though...
- flohofwoe 4y agoThe idea that ref-counting is automatically "better" than a garbage collector is still pretty popular unfortunately (and that's just the tip of the iceberg).
- nu11ptr 4y agoA bump allocator + state of the art compacting GC is MUCH faster on a naïve basis which is why it is important to minimize number of allocations in non-GC langs and use stack based RAII when possible. When building things like trees in a non-GC language, arena allocation should be considered for max performance. This is just another low level vs high level trade off IMO.
- pkolaczk 4y ago> A bump allocator + state of the art compacting GC is MUCH faster I can see it repeated very often, but can you point me to any evidence for such claim, based on modern low-pause GCs and real data (not simulation)? I find low pause GCs have pretty substantial overhead and have way lower allocation throughput than old stop-the-world GCs. And the difference between manual memory allocation wasn't that big either (still within 2x).