_old_dude_

29 ms·

1. 301.▲
   by _old_dude_ 10y ago

   if the field is volatile, you have an happen before relationship between the volatile read of thing before the synchronized block and the volatile write inside the synchronized block, so you have no way to see the object partially initializ
2. 302.▲
   by _old_dude_ 10y ago

   var handles also uses the polymorphic signature trick to avoid boxing/unboxing of the arguments you get with the reflection (the same trick also allows to introduce 64 bits index array in the future BTW). and you can also do all memory
3. 303.▲
   by _old_dude_ 10y ago

   Scala's lazy val uses the double-checked locking pattern with the field declared volatile, (the private field thing in the example) that's why there is no issue
4. 304.▲
   by _old_dude_ 10y ago

   I agree with Chris, it would be a lot worse if generics were reified in Java because instead of having some spurious ClassCastExceptions, you will get memory corruptions instead.
5. 305.▲
   by _old_dude_ 10y ago

   Java 9 is not fully compatible with Java 8. So we will soon see first hand if doing more backward compat breakage, for good they told, will be accepted or not. I predict there will be an internet outrage when Java 9 will be out.
6. 306.▲
   by _old_dude_ 10y ago

   It's the opposite actually. Here the erasure is a good thing otherwise the bug described in the blog will have break the VM. The type system is broken because it supposes you have a type that exists and in the code you send null instea