Comment Re:Developers section red now ? (Score 2, Insightful) 387
Well, if it were running on 64-bit java instead of 64-bit perl, it wouldn't - java ints are still only 32 bits in "64 bit java.
Someone forgot to future-proof their language. 10 years from now, when you're running a 128-bit cpu with a quarter-terrabyte of ram, those 32-bit signed ints are going to look mighty quaint. "What do you mean, I can't store the [file size|number of inodes|ipv6 address|whatever] in a 128-bit int? What do you mean, 128-bit java doesn't have 128-bit ints? You're shitting me, right? This is 2018
Refactor your ints to long if you need bigger values?
Apart from that, the link's criticism specifically refers to Arrays still using a 32bit int index without the capability to use a long instead but you might be able to work around that by using another datastructure instead should you really need that much Objects stored in one container.
