What would be the point? Java programs assume GC (or at least, they assume they can allocate memory and not worry about when it will be freed). If you don't have GC then you're not going to be compatible with extant Java programs, so what's the point in trying to be "Java compatible" at all?
6) int arrays do not have cache misses (but you might need to pad them to avoid cache invalidation) 7) parallel atomic multicore works on int arrays out of the box!
From my perspective I am happy with the tradeoff of hanving gc pauses and not needing to manage memory manually.
2) VMs avoid crashes upon failures that cause a segmentation fault in native opcodes, with a VM you can keep the process from crashing AND get exact information where and how the problem occurred avoiding debug compiles with symbols and reproducing the error on your local computer.
Right now I use this with my C++ code to get somewhere near the feedback I get from Java (but it requires you to compile with debug): http://move.rupy.se/file/stack.txt
The question you really should ask is why are people using C++? Performance is only required in some parts of engines, to have a VM without GC on top should be default by now (50 years after C and 25 years after Java).
I don’t have anything against Java, but it seems like you lose a lot of the benefits of using when you take away allocation.
Java + WASM is probably what I'll end up with, don't like the AoT step from a distance we'll see.
I'm looking at all Risc/stack op/byte-code, and it's disheartening in how many ways humans can copy the same thing differently.
C#, RISC-V, Java, WASM, ARM, 6502 ASM, uxn, lox the list goes on and on...
2) Why exactly? 3) that’s why you have a GC. But if I really want to understand what you mean (I assume you meant non-memory resources not being explicitly closed?), try-with-resources and cleaners solve the problem quite well.
4) Does it really matter if the last 2 decades were spent on optimizing allocation to the point where it is literally a pointer bump and like 3 basic, thread-local instructions? Deallocation can be amortized to be practically zero cost (moving GC), at RAM’s expense. Where it really really matters though, you could always do ByteBuffers, the new MemorySegment’s or just straight sun.misc.Unsafe pointer arithmetics. That string allocation will be escape analyzed and be stack allocated either way.
I don’t even know what do you mean by static allocation. You mean like in embedded, having fix sized arrays and exploding when the user enters a 32+1 letter text? I really don’t miss that. 6) value classes are coming and solving the issue. Though it begs the question, what’s the size of your average list? Also, how come it doesn’t matter for all the linked lists used extensively in C? Also, see point 4. 7) I don’t get what you mean here, do you mean not doing atomic instructions, because java don’t have out-of-thin-air values? There are rare programs that can get away with that, but I think Java has quite a great toolkit for synchronization primitives to build everything (most concurrency books use it for a reason).
The first and last bottleneck of computers is and will always be RAM. Both speed, memory size and energy. A 256GB RAM stick uses 80W!!!! Latency is increasing since DDR3 (2007) and we have had caches to accommodate for slow RAM since 386 (1985) (3 always seems to be the last version, HL3 confirmed? >.<):
You need to cache align everything perfectly: 1) all data has to be in an array (or vector which is a managed array but i digress) 2) you need your types to be atomic so multiple cores can write to them at the same time without segmentation fault (int/float). 3) You need your groups/objects/structs to perfectly fill (padded) 64 bytes. Because then multiple cores cannot invalidate each others cache unless they are writing to the same struct.
So SoA vs. AoS never was an argument! AoS where structures are exactly 64 bytes is the only thing all programmers must do for eternity! This is the law of both X86 and ARM.
So an array of float Mat4x4 is perfect and I suspect that is where the 64 bytes came from. But here is another struct just as an example:
struct Node {
int mesh, skin;
Vec3 spot, pace;
Quat look, spin;
};Most applications have plenty of objects all around that are rarely used and are perfectly fine with being managed by the GC as is, and a tiny performance critical core where you might have to care a tiny bit about what gets allocated. This segment can be optimized other ways as well, without hurting the maintainability, speed of progress etc of the rest of the codebase.
Cachelines are 64 bytes on all modern hardware.
They will probably never change this value ever.
Everything fits into 64 bytes if you make the effort.
And if it doesn't you have to use two Arrays of 64 byte Structures and pad the last.
This is non negotiable and I'm completely baffled nobody has mentioned this yet.
I call this law: Ao64bS (did I invent my first law?) :D
But since it’s AMP and not SMP, sharing work across cores doesn’t necessarily work how you expect it to.
128 bytes is perfect 2 x 64! So even if the risk of cache invalidation goes up even if two cores are not writing to the exact same structure the alignment still works!
Good job Apple!
This seems very high to me, since most high capacity server sticks have no heatsink. Have you got a source?
only users of long running programs assume GC, the program itself doesnt care.