News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Erlang Garbage Collection Details and Why They Matter by zamalek on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @09:14AM (#10220411)
The advice goes somewhat deeper than this. Design goals aside you really shouldn't get too clever with GCs as they are subject to change. If the GC changes (because of platform upgrades, or simply using different runtimes) suddenly your application can start showing strange or bad memory performance characteristics.

Either way a less controversial way to put the Go advice would be:

> If you must read the rest of this document to understand the behavior of your program, you are being untrusting. Don't use things you don't trust.

If you care about memory performance characteristics that much you really should be using a language that gives you control over them.

That's not to say that all GC advice is bad: good GC advice exists and usually sticks to the formal definition of a GC (an infinite memory simulator), instead of implementation details which, again, can change.

Re:Erlang Garbage Collection Details and Why They Matter by shepardrtc on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @09:48AM (#10220573)
Then why don't they just say that? Something like, "Hey, we may change how this works in the future. Clever optimizations now may not work down the road."
Re:Erlang Garbage Collection Details and Why They Matter by zamalek on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @01:36PM (#10221965)
The problem with depending on specific optimizations like that it lock-steps you to updates that boast improvements (that break your implementation-dependant code).
Re:Erlang Garbage Collection Details and Why They Matter by jeffdavis on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @12:25PM (#10221521)
The author argued that the GC details matter, not whether they will or won't change.