3 ms·

The poster is talking about the subset of modern languages that have GC. They're not suggesting that only modern languages have GC.

by foldr 3y ago

pjmlp 3y ago
> "Another big reason is the lack of value types in languages like Java. Modern languages with a GC tend to have those, and where it makes sense to use them they help, a lot." Might be interpreted as older languages with GC did not had value types, which is bluntly false, going back to 1970's. My remark was to make clear this isn't something new and modern, rather a design mistake in languages like Java, that is now trying really hard to fix it, while others designed after it (like C#), thankfully didn't follow the same trap. How modern a 2001 language (C#), using ideas from Mesa/Cedar (1985), is an exercise in the semantics of "modern".
- foldr 3y ago
  >Might be interpreted as older languages with GC did not had value types, which is bluntly false, going back to 1970's. Ok, but you included Common Lisp in your list, which doesn't really have value types. (E.g. you cannot make an unboxed array of structs.)
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    No, but you can have an array of primitive values, instead of an array of pointers.
    - foldr 3y ago
      You can do that in Java too!
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Take your brownies, I guess, that wasn't my point. As if me mis-remembering Common Lisp capabilities, invalidates the rest regarding "modern" GC languages. Here is an array of structs in Oberon, 1987, TYPE Point = RECORD x, y : INTEGER END; Triagle = RECORD v1, v2, v3: Point END; Data = ARRAY 100 OF Triagle; (* static sized *) DynData = ARRAY OF Triagle; (* dynamically sized *) VAR dynData : DynData; (* Allocated via NEW(dynData, elems)*)
        foldr 3y ago
        No, it doesn't invalidate the rest of your comment. It just made it harder to figure out what point you were making in your original post (i.e. what the this referred to). There's a little bit of irony here in how you react to people picking at details in your own posts, when your original post is precisely the same kind of pedantry!

The poster is talking about the subset of modern languages that have GC. They're not suggesting that only modern languages have GC.

by foldr 3y ago

The poster is talking about the subset of modern languages that have GC. They're not suggesting that only modern languages have GC.

pjmlp 3y ago

> "Another big reason is the lack of value types in languages like Java. Modern languages with a GC tend to have those, and where it makes sense to use them they help, a lot." Might be interpreted as older languages with GC did not had value types, which is bluntly false, going back to 1970's. My remark was to make clear this isn't something new and modern, rather a design mistake in languages like Java, that is now trying really hard to fix it, while others designed after it (like C#), thankfully didn't follow the same trap. How modern a 2001 language (C#), using ideas from Mesa/Cedar (1985), is an exercise in the semantics of "modern".

foldr 3y ago
>Might be interpreted as older languages with GC did not had value types, which is bluntly false, going back to 1970's. Ok, but you included Common Lisp in your list, which doesn't really have value types. (E.g. you cannot make an unboxed array of structs.)
- pjmlp 3y ago
  No, but you can have an array of primitive values, instead of an array of pointers.
  - foldr 3y ago
    You can do that in Java too!
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Take your brownies, I guess, that wasn't my point. As if me mis-remembering Common Lisp capabilities, invalidates the rest regarding "modern" GC languages. Here is an array of structs in Oberon, 1987, TYPE Point = RECORD x, y : INTEGER END; Triagle = RECORD v1, v2, v3: Point END; Data = ARRAY 100 OF Triagle; (* static sized *) DynData = ARRAY OF Triagle; (* dynamically sized *) VAR dynData : DynData; (* Allocated via NEW(dynData, elems)*)
      - foldr 3y ago
        No, it doesn't invalidate the rest of your comment. It just made it harder to figure out what point you were making in your original post (i.e. what the this referred to). There's a little bit of irony here in how you react to people picking at details in your own posts, when your original post is precisely the same kind of pedantry!