Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwkaufma | Hacker News Reader

"How do you apply algo X to a problem which has been narrowly-tailored and/or under-specified to specifically exclude X" isn't exactly a constructive inquiry.

View on HN

A general graph is not exactly "narrowly tailored". Graphs are pretty common.

No but they are under-specified. OP is specifically working with a document-hierarchy data-structure with a natural ownership/weak-pointer distinction to exploit -- no need to abstract it to a general graph.

Yes, but then they also said:

> hopefully design your language semantics to discourage cycles

thus expanding the scope of their comment beyond that specific use case.

Yes, but they said that in the context of a tailored language for persistent/HDD-backed data, where implicitly performance crosses the line into an additional measure of correctness, rather than an orthogonal one. ("to find live references means walking nearly the entire heap including the portions living in secondary storage, and now you're in a world of pain")

So the "increased cognitive overhead" is intrinsic to the problem domain, not an unforced defect of the language design. Overgeneralization in such a case would induce even worse overhead as there'd be no user-level way to fix perf.

Fair point.

You don't always have to walk the entire program heap to find cyclic references, only the fraction of it that may in fact be involved in a cycle. That fraction may or may not be inherently small enough, depending on the kind of problems you'll be working with.

Graphs are common. But you don't have to represent each edge as a pointer. For example you can represent them using (sparse) adjacency matrices. Or you can represent edges using a pointer in each direction (even for a directed graph) or some other data structure (as is commonly the case in triangle mesh data structures). Lots of options. Most do not require GC.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com