| |||||||||||||
TasteTastePosted Sep 6, 2007 20:39 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179)In reply to: Taste by lysse Parent article: LinuxConf.eu: Documentation and user-space API design
In practice, with the current GC implementations and languages, GC is both slow and noticeable. There is no point in arguing this at all, because I experience it every day - in the Java applications I develop, as well as the ones I use.
You could say that I should use another vendor's implementation (e.g. - http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf... - which AFAIK isn't free), or use this or that magical runtime option (naturally after doing heavy profiling), or move to a quad core CPU, but that doesn't change the _default_ situation.
Plus, technically speaking, GC is extremely complex and complexity isn't free.
You cannot have fast concurrent GC without affecting and significantly complicating the generated code - you need to track asynchronous changes, synchronize threads, etc - all very complicated and error prone operations that have a definite cost. It is no accident that there are no accurate concurrent open source collectors. AFAIK the Mono developers are working on something - http://www.mono-project.com/Compacting_GC - but it is not ready yet.
(Log in to post comments)
Taste Posted Sep 8, 2007 1:48 UTC (Sat) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > You could say that I should use another vendor's implementation (e.g. - http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research_projects.nsf... - which AFAIK isn't free)
The last sentence of *that very page* says otherwise. Is the rest of your argument constructed with as much care as this?
Taste Posted Sep 8, 2007 2:03 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] "Metronome Garbage collection is now commercially available under the name WebSphere Real Time. This product is the result of a collaboration between the Metronome team and IBM Software Group. The first implementation of Metronome was in the open-source Jikes Research Virtual Machine (RVM)."
Do I misunderstand the meaning of the words "first implementation was" and "commercially available" ? Besides, if you had bothered to read my post, you'd see that the "freeness" of an implementation is a secondary point. You'd also probably know that extracting a GC from a research project and transplanting it into another JVM is not a mere technical detail.
Judging by the arrogant and dismissive tone of your post, I can only conclude that you have nothing informative to say on this subject. I also dare say that your attitude negates the value of all of your posts on the subject, (which even though I didn't agree with completely I initially found interesting).
Taste Posted Sep 13, 2007 2:39 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] You are free to conclude exactly what you please, of course, but consider what conclusions I might have formed that made me decide to be "arrogant and dismissive". Ironic, n'est-ce pas?
Taste Posted Sep 13, 2007 3:06 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] If you aren't saying anything on the subject of garbage collection, why do you bother replying ? I don't know who you are or what your credentials are, so my opinion of you doesn't matter. And vice versa.
My point is clear enough - garbage collection, as it is experienced in practice in everyday life - is slow. There exist solutions, but they are proprietary and far from common.
Please, try to restrain your apparent urge to be rude and either say why you think my point isn't valid (or what your proposed solution is), or go away.
Taste Posted Sep 13, 2007 3:26 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] I didn't get as far as saying that your point wasn't valid. I said that your fact-checking was laughably unthorough, with the implication that your argument was founded primarily on personal prejudice and you weren't about to let a good fact get in the way. Generally, if I find one claim that's directly negated by the evidence presented in support of it, I don't hang around to see how much of the rest of someone's argument turns out to be a big pile of manure.
And your response to being caught in a falsehood (whether you like it or not, Monotone is unequivocally not non-free; "a commercial version is now available" != "it is not free") was to defend the falsehood and attack your challenger. The former undermines your credibility even further, and gives me no reason to change my initial assessment. The latter has no place in civilised debate, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.
However, the fact that having done so, you then have the hypocrisy and presumption to upbraid me for an "apparent urge to be rude", demonstrates pretty clearly that you *have* no shame. You are not worth communicating woth, frankly, let alone debating. You want to know why I didn't see any good reason for wasting my time on you? Reread your own posts. You've given me no reason to think you're worth a damn, and plenty of cause to decide you aren't - and that's even *before* we consider the merits of your arguments.
I was hoping to avoid telling you exactly what I thought of you, but if you're going to accuse me of rudeness when I am showing restraint, I have nothing to lose. So here it is; I hope it justifies your every prejudice about me, and gives you a few you hadn't thought of. You're not the kind of person I *want* thinking well of me.
Taste Posted Sep 13, 2007 3:53 UTC (Thu) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] Another post without information. I did not expect that. You don't even have the decency to admit that:- WebSphere Real Time is not free - in any case that fact is irrelevant for the point I was making
At least we will both be confident in the knowledge of that.
Go away, troll.
Taste Posted Sep 13, 2007 11:59 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] You're still expecting *decency* from me? Weird.
And the funny thing is, for all your assertions that I'm a troll, *you* initially replied to *me*. And then threw a tantrum when I declined to respect your authoritah.
And now you won't stop, because you Just Have to have the last word, even though the sane thing to do would have been to stop responding at least two comments ago.
In real life, you'd be that kid on the playground who tries to butt into a conversation I'm having with my friends and then starts calling me names and complaining to the teachers because I gave you the brush-off.
And I haven't responded to an argument because you haven't MADE an argument. "Real-world GC is slow in my experience" is an assertion, and a subjective one at that, with a huge great amorphous blob of a term in the middle of it. (I've already mentioned hypocrisy, haven't I? Just checking.) Either put something objective and quantifiable on the table, or take your invisible ball and fuck off back to the infant playground.
|
|||||||||||||