Comparison of C++17, Go, and Java for a next-generation sequencing tool

Re:Comparison of C++17, Go, and Java for a next-generation s... by tomp on Thursday April 23, 2020 @05:42PM (#22961855)

> you could implement a JVM that used reference counting

It would leak memory - reference counting cannot collect cycles (you need tracing GC for that, defeating the purpose of refcounting).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparison of C++17, Go, and Java for a next-generation s... by aidenn0 on Thursday April 23, 2020 @09:11PM (#22963572)

From right after what you quoted:

> (though in order to be general a small amount of additional work is needed)

Not also that there are two methods of cycle detection for a reference counted GC that are not just a backup tracing-GC

1. Trial deletion (known since at least the mid 80s)

2. Various tracing systems that exploit extra information known to reference-counted systems e.g. Levanoni/Petrank[1] which actually implemented a reference counted GC for Java.

1: https://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~erez/Papers/refcount.pdf

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comparison of C++17, Go, and Java for a next-generation s... by tomp on Friday April 24, 2020 @05:42AM (#22966260)

Thanks, I didn't know that!

[ Parent | on HN ]