On 11/11/07, Gabriel Sechan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Don't you think the current generation of garbage collectors in Java > > and .NET are already making various optimizations like dead pools, > > generations, etc.? > > > No. Or at least no more so than the default malloc does. Those kinds of > optimizations only really work if you know the parameters to optimize for. > And given the mailing lists for Java at work, about 60% are from people > complaining about the memory allocation or garbage allocation being > suboptimal. Usually the solution is to use a completely different garbage > collector.
How can the default malloc have optimizations like generational garbage collection? That doesn't make sense. Maybe Java does have problems in this area. I'm more familiar with .NET and Python. > And for that matter, if .NET and Java have these optimizations, what makes > you think malloc doesn't? Malloc is an interface, the implementation can be > anything it wants. Based on your comments, I don't think you're familiar with garbage collection and/or malloc. > Disagree. First off performance isn't there. And performance still matter, > until you buy my hardware. For a second, I find that thinking about memory > allocation and such issues bring about better designed programs- usually my > fist sign that a design is bad is that the memory ownership has become odd. > And frankly, memory management is pretty dead fucking simple. I see no > advantages to garbage collection, only negatives. No advantages at all? Memory management is "pretty dead fucking simple"? I don't know where to begin... -Chuck -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
