• Nikolay (8/8) Mar 04 2018 These guys have independent JVM implementation and used
• 12345swordy (2/10) Mar 04 2018 Link to said article please.
• Ali (4/15) Mar 04 2018 i think he means this article
• Dukc (2/5) Mar 05 2018 Thank you.
• Nikolay (3/7) Mar 06 2018 Oops my mistake
• Dmitry Olshansky (5/13) Mar 04 2018 Provided that you manage resources via finalizer and there is no

Nikolay <sibnick gmail.com> writes:

These guys have independent JVM implementation and used 
Conservative GC for many years. As I can see it it is very 
similar to d-runtime GC. But their conclusion is: "sooner or 
later the absence of knowledge about the liveness of local 
variables will lead to problems in production that just cannot be 
handled"

BTW Have we any progress or scheduled for GC improvements (e.g. 
process fork for parallel GC, thread-local GC)?

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 02:42:48 UTC, Nikolay wrote:
 These guys have independent JVM implementation and used 
 Conservative GC for many years. As I can see it it is very 
 similar to d-runtime GC. But their conclusion is: "sooner or 
 later the absence of knowledge about the liveness of local 
 variables will lead to problems in production that just cannot 
 be handled"

 BTW Have we any progress or scheduled for GC improvements (e.g. 
 process fork for parallel GC, thread-local GC)?

Link to said article please.

Ali <fakeemail example.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 02:53:49 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 02:42:48 UTC, Nikolay wrote:
 These guys have independent JVM implementation and used 
 Conservative GC for many years. As I can see it it is very 
 similar to d-runtime GC. But their conclusion is: "sooner or 
 later the absence of knowledge about the liveness of local 
 variables will lead to problems in production that just cannot 
 be handled"

 BTW Have we any progress or scheduled for GC improvements 
 (e.g. process fork for parallel GC, thread-local GC)?

 Link to said article please.

i think he means this article
https://www.excelsiorjet.com/blog/articles/conservative-gc-is-it-really-that-bad/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16436574

Dukc <ajieskola gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 05:43:36 UTC, Ali wrote:
 i think he means this article
 https://www.excelsiorjet.com/blog/articles/conservative-gc-is-it-really-that-bad/
 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16436574

Thank you.

Nikolay <sibnick gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 05:43:36 UTC, Ali wrote:
 Link to said article please.

 i think he means this article
 https://www.excelsiorjet.com/blog/articles/conservative-gc-is-it-really-that-bad/
 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16436574

Oops my mistake

Yes, thanks it is exactly this article!

Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 5 March 2018 at 02:42:48 UTC, Nikolay wrote:
 These guys have independent JVM implementation and used 
 Conservative GC for many years. As I can see it it is very 
 similar to d-runtime GC. But their conclusion is: "sooner or 
 later the absence of knowledge about the liveness of local 
 variables will lead to problems in production that just cannot 
 be handled"

Provided that you manage resources via finalizer and there is no 
RAII and the like.

Interestingly enough both new low-latency GCs for Java are 
non-generational.

 BTW Have we any progress or scheduled for GC improvements (e.g. 
 process fork for parallel GC, thread-local GC)?