This content has been marked as final. Show 34 replies
If you can reduce the number of dynamic allocatedThen you would have a program slower trying to allocate memory in the stack everytime an object is created, one of the advantages of mannaged memory is to postpone the cost of memmory alloc/dealloc to gc time that usualy happens when the system is idle or really needing it, sometimes an aplication does note even live to see a garbage colection. If you have to alloc/dealloc memmory everytime the object is created or goes out of scope you would have a less responsive application.
objects 80%, how could that be not helping the GC? I
am not saying 80% is the actual number. What you said
is all or nothing.
And you Dave, get the fuck off.
May the code be with you.
> Then you would have a program slower trying to allocate memory in the stack everytime an object is
created, one of the advantages of mannaged memory is to postpone the cost of memmory alloc/dealloc to gcIt's true that the result of this would cause the app less responsive. However, perceivable or not is another matter. It's a trade off between a very long pause and many short pauses. For app written without GC (using other language than Java), this "less" responsive seems to be a none issues. The long pause is the one that many people complaint about. Also remember that long pause by GC does lock up the thing (with latest GC, I think it can do some local memory clean up, but from what I see in Jdk 5, not much diff.), and no other thread can run. With short pauses, other threads can run and go their own businesses.
time that usualy happens when the system is idle or really needing it, sometimes an aplication does note
even live to see a garbage colection. If you have to alloc/dealloc memmory everytime the object is created or
goes out of scope you would have a less responsive application.
And you Dave, get the fuck off.No.
So, do you know how to build this yourself? Is anyone here going to build it for you?
That's funny, I didn't hear a 'yes' in the chorus...
What a loser.
What a shameless act from this guy. Just want to point out to other people (no, not you Dave, you don't deserve a conversation from me) how low a life this guy has (and maybe you have a good laugh)
1) First, if you report a bug, or suggest a feature, there's no saying that you have to implement it. (someone has said this, but this guy is probably retarded and did not listen or understand. No, this is not an insult, it's fact)
2) I know how to build this. Why would I NEED this? And why would I do this FOR me. Obviously I don't need this more than other millions of people who uses Java out there. It would be stupid to build this FOR me, if not for my own FUN or PROFIT.
3) Simple concept like this, and an "C++ experienced" guy like that cannot understand, and I have to point out many of his errors both in code and in logics. I also clear ALL questions regarding the concept, and he still does not get it. What's the dictionary word for this? Oh, many, but try "retarded". Again, it's not an insult, it's fact.
4) The guy try to tell me that I have to understand JVM to suggest this. Yes, I know some of the JVM concepts. Not everyone masters all JVM technology (if any). But the guy does not understand the abstraction between excecution environment and programming language. That is you can talk about language but not about how internally the JVM works. That's why there is specification about languages and there is specification about machines (Machine in general, such as Intel's, Amd's, JVM, etc). In fact, it's possible to compile java to machine code that runs under native environment, and not JVM.
There are more, but you get the idea. This guy probably cannot get it. So it's probably a waste effort to point out ALL of his .... retardness.
So where else can you laugh at?
Looking at this guy's resume, you see that he has worked at many places, short terms. Probably contracts. That may point to his frustration in life. Ironically, he wrote a computer book. Could you believe that this is a guy that write a book? What a messed up world it is. I am actually laughing when writing this. More ironic, his resume shows what his accomplishments are, and that's nothing compare to his arrogant. There's an adage that say something about the more you know, the more humble you are. Reverse that, and you know his mental state. My advice for people like this: go see a psychologist.
I certainly had a good laugh. I can't speak for anyone else.
Addressing your conveniently numbered points:
1. If you wish to report a bug or suggest a feature to Sun, you should use the bug database; that's what it's for. Alternatively you raise a JCP. I have never heard of any feature suggested in the forums becoming part of the language, nor would I expect it to.
2. "Why would I NEED this"? Surely the question is why would anyone need this? It's a clueless pointless waste of space.
3. I don't understand precisely what you want because you haven't expressed it in rigorous terms. Certainly I understand the gist of what you're after - but I think it's a stupid idea, largely because of exactly those details that you're not considering.
4. You don't have to understand the JVM to suggest this, but you have to understand the JVM if you want to understand the arguments for or against it. Since you evidently don't, it seems rather pointless arguing with you, so I've resorted to abuse for my personal entertainment (it's working very well).
"retardness" - so very nearly a word.
"Looking at this guy's resume, you see that he has worked at many places, short terms. Probably contracts." - duh - I'm a consultant. We get our jobs in contract form, and it's terribly lucrative.
"More ironic, his resume shows what his accomplishments are, and that's nothing compare to his arrogant." And your achievements are?
Nope, I haven't achieved much, I expect there are plenty of users of the forum who're vastly more competent than me, far more intellectual, and undoubtedly nicer people.
But I haven't seen any of the real giants commenting on your clueless idea. It's lovely to see you so attached to it. You're so witless.