ootachi

9 ms·

31.
by ootachi 15y ago
Another point in favor of my theory ;)
32.
by ootachi 15y ago
You're talking to Yehuda Katz here. Yes, he has worked with Firebug.
33.
by ootachi 15y ago
The standard state-of-the-art for garbage collection is two-space copying for the nursery, and mark-and-sweep for the tenured generation. That way you avoid copying the whole heap on every GC; you only get copying for the nursery. You may h
34.
by ootachi 15y ago
I have a theory, which has so far held up [1], that every remotely popular language that needs automatic storage reclamation ends up growing a generational and incremental/concurrent collector, either in its main branch or in a fork [2]. It
35.
by ootachi 15y ago
It changes all the time, and all languages have their merits and drawbacks. But I'd say Rust for now.
36.
by ootachi 15y ago
Yeah, atomic RC hurts a lot (5x-10x slower, based on the measurements I've seen -- Hans Boehm of Boehm GC fame did a presentation on this that you can find if you're interested). (This is a problem with Objective-C reference counting -- the
37.
by ootachi 15y ago
Right, as soon as it goes out of scope. (Or when you call release to drop the last reference on it, if you aren't using ARC.)
38.
by ootachi 15y ago
Yes, Objective-C will reclaim your retained objects promptly (unless you use the deprecated Objective-C garbage collection, which few do and never worked on iOS). The exception is the autorelease pool, which gets dumped at the end of every
39.
by ootachi 15y ago
Well, you have to make sure that you use atomic reference counting in this case. Using regular reference counting will lead to subtle and hard-to-diagnose bugs. Also, to answer your query, Rust uses unique pointers (the equivalent of std::u
40.
by ootachi 15y ago
No Scala or Rust? Especially Rust seems like it fits the author's wishlist.
41.
by ootachi 15y ago
That was a dumb decision on Linus' part. Apple is the future; Linux is the past.
42.
by ootachi 15y ago
OCaml is a highly underappreciated language. The biggest problem is the haphazard syntax, but if you can get over that, it's really a joy to use for application programming. You get the strongly-typed, type-inferred, functional aspects of H
43.
by ootachi 15y ago
Google can't realistically push more people to use Google by default. Google search is a monopoly. I believe it is fair to state, however, that one of the reasons that Chrome exists is that Google wants Google to be synonymous with the Web
44.
by ootachi 15y ago
No, people are choosing Chrome over IE for home use. The trend is clear; Chrome is likely to achieve a crushingly dominant market share in a couple of years, or sooner.
45.
by ootachi 15y ago
On the contrary, this happens all the time in startups. Think about it: a lot of startups consist of early 20-something males running everything.
46.
by ootachi 15y ago
Founders often don't have a choice as to whether to accept buyout offers. In the case of OMGPOP, which had received a ton of VC funding and struggled for years until finally finding some success, I can definitely see why VCs would want to f
47.
by ootachi 15y ago
Careful with that argument. The fast, easy, naïve implementation in Go is quite dangerous (not even memory safe), because he forgot to lock the map. Go made it easy to write an incorrect implementation of a key-value store...
48.
by ootachi 15y ago
And in Go, they aren't running long enough to see the GC kick in. I suspect the overhead of GC will be significant without tuning.
49.
by ootachi 15y ago
So much for CSP, if you're using threads and shared state.
50.
by ootachi 15y ago
There is no default in C, beyond stdio. The C specification makes no reference to any I/O beyond stdio. The author was being unfair to C. Use epoll or, better yet, libuv. libuv is a simple-to-use library.
51.
by ootachi 15y ago
Seesmic is dead? How come we aren't hearing about this?
52.
by ootachi 15y ago
The second dotcom bubble is bursting.
53.
by ootachi 15y ago
Reimplementing it would not be an option. Making WebKit the reference implementation would give Google and Apple such an enormous advantage in development cycles that any browser that didn't use it would be unable to compete. You'd be expel
54.
by ootachi 15y ago
Go isn't failing. It's actually doing quite well. I disagree with the design and implementation of almost every part of the language, but credit where credit is due: Google has created a language that a lot of people like.
55.
by ootachi 15y ago
It doesn't. Go provides stack allocation and heap allocation. Stack allocation is the default (except for some always-on-heap things), and stack allocation is silently converted to heap allocation when you take the address of an object. Go'
56.
by ootachi 15y ago
"If data is on the stack, any references starting there disappear as soon as that stack frame is popped, so there's no lingering work for the GC to do" You're only considering the sweep phase. Sweep is the easy part of tracing GC - you can
57.
by ootachi 15y ago
C compilers can and do generate SSE. Programs do rely on this code generation for performance. They fall back on assembly when codegen fails. That doesn't mean that they aren't relying on the optimizations in other places. And a huge amount
58.
by ootachi 15y ago
Replace "PC" with "program". That's the key here. Most of the code in any program is not performance critical. Yet the reason that this is the case is that most of the time of any program is spent in tight loops. Those tight loops are wha
59.
by ootachi 15y ago
Mutating a hash map in Java while another thread reads it won't cause bad things like: (a) memory you don't have access to to be read; (b) other threads to crash; (c) the VM state to be corrupted; (d) the GC to crash; and so on. The Java wo
60.
by ootachi 15y ago
Go gives you slightly better control over allocation than Java (in that you have a choice to allocate on the stack and inside other data structures -- but keep in mind that escape analysis can give you this too, see the optimizations in the

More ›