News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Is Rust web yet? Not really by fulafel on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @03:21PM (#7812233)
Ref counting is murder on caches. Every read will cause a rmw on the ref count cache line.

Modern generational GCs are reasonably nice on caches in most cases.

Re:Is Rust web yet? Not really by AlisdairO on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @05:01PM (#7812916)
This is not so much the case in rust because you only increment the reference count when you're passing around copied refs to an item. If you instead borrow a ref counted item, you don't need to increase the ref count - because rust will statically enforce that the borrow lasts less time than the item it borrows from (which is enough to keep the item alive). With good coding practices, you can eliminate the large majority of ref count increments/decrements.
Re:Is Rust web yet? Not really by yuriks on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @05:43PM (#7813159)
Such cache line will (because it is adjancent to the refcounted data) almost always be in cache anyway. Rust's refcounting is much cheaper than C++'s refcounting because it doesn't need to be atomic. (There is a separate type for atomic RC, and it is enforced by the compiler that you use it when needed.)
Re:Is Rust web yet? Not really by dllthomas on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @03:22PM (#7812236)
Every handoff, not every read, right? Of which there might be more or fewer.