3 ms·

So we're not talking about runtime performance, but some minor improvement in loading times? I assume that once the JVM has read the bytecode, it has its own ef

by mort96 1y ago

So we're not talking about runtime performance, but some minor improvement in loading times? I assume that once the JVM has read the bytecode, it has its own efficient in-memory structures to track references to classes rather than using a hash map with fully qualified names as keys

saagarjha 1y ago
The names need to be stored somewhere because they are exposed to the program that way
- mort96 1y ago
  They have to be stored somewhere, but they don't have to be what the JVM uses when it e.g performs a function call at runtime. Just having the names in memory doesn't slow down program execution.
  - saagarjha 1y ago
    At runtime this is going to be a branch instruction yes
swiftcoder 1y ago
Proguard was heavily influenced by the needs of early Android devices, where memory was at a real premium. Reducing the size of static tables of strings is a worthwhile optimisation in that environment
- mort96 1y ago
  Okay but we're talking about Minecraft on desktops and laptops, where the relevant optimizations would be runtime performance optimizations, no?
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    Probably, but proguard tends to bundle the whole lot together
throwaway2037 1y ago
Even a hash map with fully qualified names as keys wouldn't be so bad because Stirng is immutable in Java, so the hash code can be cached on the object.