Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Another SLOW Language (Score 1) 279

The JIT and the GC are the two parts of the VM that must be able to escape the constraints of the language model (the JIT must be able to generate executable code, which the Java security model doesn't permit, and the GC must be able to allocate memory and assign it a type and delete objects that are still reachable). Absolutely everything else in a JVM can be implemented in Java fully respecting the language model. You can write almost all of a JVM in Java, as long as you have a small amount of statically compiled Java code that is treated as trusted and so permitted to violate the language invariants. This is precisely how Smalltalk VMs are typically written. There is no requirement for C/C++ to implement Java, it's just an easy way of doing it.

Comment Re: Don't look at it that way... (Score 1) 151

If you're creating a database table, 64 bits doubles the size of the index column. If you're creating a database table in normal form, then you'll have a number of tables that are simply pairs of two indexes, so you will double the size of entire tables. That's going to have big cache and memory overheads and is definitely not a simple 'let's always do that' choice.

Comment Re:More features. (Score 1) 279

I honestly couldn't say. I learned C++ about 20 years ago, hated it, tolerated it a bit while working on LLVM, revisited it in C++11 and discovered that the language had changed beyond all recognition and didn't suck anymore. I like cppreference as a reference for the standard library, but I've not used a tutorial (and I definitely wouldn't recommend the old book that I read).

Comment Re:how about modules? (Score 1) 279

Yes, modules as proposed for C++ (which don't give you what the grandparent wanted: a clean separation between interface and implementation) are pretty easy. Clang has mature support for them and even some logic to implicitly generate modules from headers. They give you a compilation speedup, which is sorely needed for C++, but not the benefit that the grandparent was looking for, though they do at least require that you don't litter your headers with #ifdefs (which means C++ and C can't share modules).

Comment Re:C# vs Swift (Score 1) 75

The term to search for in the research literature is barrier elision. The new and shiny optimisations in Swift are things that garbage collected language implementations have been doing for around 30 years. Finalisers are a pain to support, but you either need to support them or you need some other mechanism for preventing non-memory resource (e.g. file descriptor) leaks.

Comment Re:C# vs Swift (Score 1) 75

The only GC mechanism that requires double the memory that you use is a semispace compactor. A lot of modern GCs use this for the young generation (if the space fits in the cache, it's very cheap, especially if you use nontemporal loads / stores when relocating the objects. Some work at Sun Research a decade ago showed that you could do it entirely in hardware in the cache controller very cheaply). Most GCs use mark-and-compact on smaller regions than the entire heap. You're right that you get some cache churn, but after the compact phase you're getting much better locality so your cache and TLB usage is improved during mutator execution.

Comment Re:More features. (Score 1) 279

In 1997, std::vector was not legal syntax.

1997 was prior to C++ becoming standardised, so there was no standard library. The vector from vector.h in SGI's STL was similar to the standard library vector, but it was not part of the standard library. The STL was also still available for a good decade or so after it was deprecated in favour of the C++ standard library.

Another change that happened involved the meaning of delete with respect to arrays. Old code would introduce bugs if compiled with new compilers and new code would leak memory if compiled with old compilers. That fits your time window.

Only if your compiler is buggy. Arrays have required deletion with delete[], not delete, for as long as the language has had a standard.

Comment Re:C# vs Swift (Score 3, Interesting) 75

1. While you're completely correct in theory, if all of the mainstream implementations currently work in the assumed fashion then his point is still reasonably valid.

The mainstream implementations optimise for a particular point in the tradeoff space because they're mainstream (i.e. intended to be used in that space). GCs designed for mobile and embedded systems work differently.

2. ARC is designed to minimise the refcount editing / false sharing

I've worked on the ARC optimisations a little bit. They're very primitive and the design means that you often can't elide the count manipulations. The optimisations are really there to simplify the front end, not to make the code better. When compiling Objective-C, clang is free to emit a retain for the object that's being stored and a release for the object that's being replaced. It doesn't need to try to be efficient, because the optimisers have knowledge of data and control flow that the front end lacks and so it makes sense to emit redundant operations in the front end and delete them in the middle. Swift does this subtly differently by having its own high-level IR that tracks dataflow, so the front end can feed cleaner IR into LLVM.

The design of ARC does nothing to reduce false sharing. Until 64-bit iOS, Apple was storing the refcount in a look-aside table (GNUstep put it in the object header about 20 years before Apple). This meant that you were acquiring a lock on a C++ map structure for each refcount manipulation, which made it incredibly expensive (roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than the GNUstep implementation).

Oh, and making the same optimisations work with C++ shared_ptr would be pretty straightforward, but it's mostly not needed because the refcount manipulations are inlined and simple arithmetic optimisations elide the redundant ones.

Comment Re:Deliberately missing the forest for the trees (Score 2) 379

My only hope is that Trump kicks California out of the union for having the most unbalanced budget of any state

Not sure if it's still true, but the last time I looked California would be running a net surplus if it cut its contribution to the Federal budget in half, so I guess that's one way of solving the problem. Kicking out Texas and a few other states that are significant net contributors would help even more...

Comment Re: Deliberately missing the forest for the trees (Score 2) 379

The bulk of immigrants from Eastern Europe do not even compete with the regular native as they tend to be better educated and work at a higher level

Which actually is the problem, and it's a social one not an economic one. Picture this:

You're a British citizen. You grew up in a poor town and went to a crappy comprehensive school. You had no expectations of getting a good job, because there aren't very many in your area. You see immigrants coming in and living in your poor communities and by and large they're not a problem because they're suffering the same problems as you. After you get over the novelty, they just other poor people like you. Fast forward a few years and they've now manage to get qualifications that are recognised here and now they're suddenly getting better jobs than you'd ever qualify for. Their house now has a better car in front of it than yours. They're wearing more expensive clothes than you. You're seeing that social mobility is a real thing - just not for people like you. How does that make you feel?

Sure, the economy as a whole is doing better, but that's not really a great consolation to the long-term unemployed.

Comment Re:how about modules? (Score 1) 279

You can't really have a clean separation between interface and implementation in C++ without radically redesigning the compiler model. Class and function interfaces are simple, but when you throw in templates then you need to be able to have access to all of the code needed to construct a new instance of the template. The original 4Front C++ compiler did this by a horrible dance of trying to compile the code, catching the linker errors, generating code for the missing symbols, and repeating. Modern C++ compilers just generate a copy of every template that a compilation unit needs and expecting the linker to throw away the duplicates (which is why something like LLVM ends up with over a gigabyte of .o files for a 10MB binary). A lot of newer languages get around this by simply not supporting shared libraries, so you can ship the code (or some IR) along with the interface files and your compiler can generate specialised versions at static link time, or by including a big VM so that everything is distributed as some form of IR and you compile on demand.

Comment Re:Another SLOW Language (Score 1) 279

That's not necessarily true. Smalltalk VMs have been written in a subset of Smalltalk that is statically compiled for a while, and these days the JIT parts are written in the full language. In the case of Java, the sun.misc.Unsafe package include pretty much everything that the JVM needs to be able to do in terms of bypassing its own safety guarantees to be able to self host. In Jikes, the JIT and GC are written in Java. The main reason that JVMs are written in C/C++ is that you don't get much benefit from writing the bit of code that is explicitly allowed to violate a language's invariants in that language (and it makes bootstrapping harder).

Comment Re:C++ is due for deletion ... (Score 2) 279

When a "high" level language require half a dozen or so ways to implement a cast, it's time to go.

Of all of the criticisms of C++, this one makes the least sense. Different casts in C++ have very different semantics and one of the worst things that a programming language can do (and which C++ does in many places) is give you the same syntax for different semantics. Are you taking the same set of bits and interpreting them as a different type (typesafe languages don't need this because they don't permit it)? Are you explicitly removing a const qualifier and thus declaring that you know what you're doing when you do something that might break the invariants of an interface (similarly, not permitted in typesafe languages)? Are you saying create a new instance of the target type initialised from this one?

Remember when a programming language was truly object-oriented?

I still use some that are, but C++ is not one of them. If you try to write Smalltalk-like code in C++, you will write almost as bad code as if you try to write C-like code in C++.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...