4 ms·
It's amusing to me that on the same thread GC proponents say that high-performance GC is easy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6485114 https://news.ycombin
by haberman 13y ago
It's amusing to me that on the same thread GC proponents say that high-performance GC is easy (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6485114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6485114) and that Java's GC is "far from state of the art" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6483704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6483704).
And so the perpetual argument goes: GC is superior to manual memory management (the latter of which is "adding needless effort to writing software"), and the performance is just as good, and the cases where performance is not just as good will be fixed Real Soon Now.
- betterunix 13y agoI'd like to point out that I did not say that a high-performance GC is easy. What I actually said is that a simple GC is easier than simple automatic optimizations. A high-performance GC is the same level of difficulty as good automatic optimization.