4 ms·
My criticism was not "you can't do this" - my criticism was that Java requires an overengineered GC to compensate for its fundamental language flaws that make o
by bheadmaster 2mo ago
My criticism was not "you can't do this" - my criticism was that Java requires an overengineered GC to compensate for its fundamental language flaws that make optimization all but impossible.
Go's GC is nowhere near as complex, and yet it performs much better, because Go decided not to shoot itself in the foot.
- vips7L 2mo ago> my criticism was that Java requires an overengineered GC to compensate for its fundamental language flaws that make optimization all but impossible. Except this criticism will be outdated. (but then you moved the goal post to syntax). > Go's GC is nowhere near as complex, and yet it performs much better Benchmarks prove otherwise.
- bheadmaster 2mo agoI explained in detail why value classes will not outdate this criticism. The syntax is not the point - the point is the very fact that they had to add new syntax means that they couldn't retrofit the semantics into the old syntax. Which means it's nowhere near as general and universal solution as would be required to truly make the criticism outdated - in fact it's quite limited. You can't even modify the fields, which is required for almost every scenario where value classes would be useful. For anything non-trivial, you either need to pay the immutability tax or the GC tax. > Benchmarks prove otherwise Well, good luck running the benchmarks on your production servers.