News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Memory Safety Is Merely Table Stakes by lmm on Friday June 27, 2025 @01:00AM (#44393816)
Sure, but if it's had to use a lot at some point in the past it usually holds onto it.
Re:Memory Safety Is Merely Table Stakes by frollogaston on Friday June 27, 2025 @01:28AM (#44393923)
That would explain it, but also, that's super broken
Re:Memory Safety Is Merely Table Stakes by noelwelsh on Friday June 27, 2025 @02:28AM (#44394193)
Nothing broken about it. It's optimized for a particular situation, that situation being a long running process on a server. This is where the JVM typically runs. If you don't want that behaviour there are a myriad of GC options, which could be better documented but are not that hard to find.
Re:Memory Safety Is Merely Table Stakes by frollogaston on Friday June 27, 2025 @12:08PM (#44397902)
I'm not the one who wrote it though, and it's software designed to run on a workstation.
Re:Memory Safety Is Merely Table Stakes by lmm on Friday June 27, 2025 @01:31AM (#44393939)
It's not a big issue for a server deployment where if you got that memory from the OS and didn't get killed, there's probably nothing else running on the box and you might as well keep it for the next traffic spike. But yeah not ideal on the desktop/workstation.