Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I don't think this one is lacking interest, but an obvious fix. It looks like Russ Cox did commit a fix for some portion of the cases. But a better fix would either need to significantly modify the way things are laid out to reduce the odds of false positives, or else move to a precise GC.

(Precise GCs are possible in C-like languages, but trickier to implement. Here's a recent paper on one: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/ismm15-rafkind.pdf)

Von Neumann architecture falsely lead us to the path with the singular notion of "memory". We need to distinguish at the hardware architecture level between "working memory" and "persistent memory".

I doodle all the time when working. Pristine set of diagrams emerges from the chaos. I wish my computer would play along with this regime ..

I haven't mentioned downvotes to date, but the down votes on this is puzzling. Would the down voters care to comment as to why the comment is deemed down vote worthy? (I would think those who work/grok on memory managers do get the point.)

I didn't downvote it, but it mostly read like rambling nonsense to me, so that might be why. Maybe write it so it's clear to people who don't work on memory managers all day?

I've worked on memory allocators, and I can't make sense of it.

I think the idea is to differentiate between mutable and immutable data, ie. "worked on" and "final". I don't know what that would give you with regards to GC though.

"Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Brief HN discussion on that paper: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=586858

Applications are open for YC Winter 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact