«

Lew <> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> PS: I once had a task where some explicit System.gc() really helped.
> Presumably because the combination of code idioms and GC strategies
> wasn't optimized.

Genetic algorithm surely means something to you.
High and low tide, too, most likely.

In order to push the envelope just slightly, I had set heap size
to a bit more than physical memory size (to not have the program
bomb out for the rare high peaks) but otherwise make sure that
memory consumption stays well below the maximum most of the time.
Doing System.gc() on the low-tide-points just simply did help
achieve that goal. Other tricks may as well have existed,
they just didn't occur to me.

>> I don't know why it is so vaguely defined ("suggests", rather
>> than "requests" a best effort...), but it did appear to work
>> well, anyway.
> It appeared to work because you used a JVM implementation that
> honored it and you didn't run it with the switch that ignores those calls.
> Had either of those conditions not pertained, youd've had to actually fix
> the problem.

Indeed, like unsetting that (mindless) switch or changing to a
JVM-implementation that does honor the "suggestions"

PS: is "youd've" any common? It was easy to understand, but I'd never
before seen it written that way. Most of Google's first-page hits
seem to be discussions about how legal something like "you'd've"
would be. Only hit for "youd've" is in a youtube-video title.

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> PS: is "youd've" any common? It was easy to understand, but I'd never
> before seen it written that way. Most of Google's first-page hits
> seem to be discussions about how legal something like "you'd've"
> would be. Only hit for "youd've" is in a youtube-video title.

No, I accidentally didn't type the first apostrophe. It was a simple typo.

--
Lew

Eric Sosman <> wrote:
> On 6/26/2012 12:26 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Oh, seems I got the motivation wrong, then. If that was your point,
>> then obviously my essay didn't address that. My motivation was having
>> some large objects, whose memory could be explicitly freed, as soon as
>> the memory was no longer needed in the program.
> And my question, still, is "Why?"

Why do some people prefer cars with manual gear shift?
Maybe a (sub)conscious distrust in complicated technology...

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> Oh, seems I got the motivation wrong, then. If that was your point,
>>> then obviously my essay didn't address that. My motivation was having
>>> some large objects, whose memory could be explicitly freed, as soon as
>>> the memory was no longer needed in the program.
>> And my question, still, is "Why?"
>
> Why do some people prefer cars with manual gear shift?
> Maybe a (sub)conscious distrust in complicated technology...

Nope.

My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.

Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
transmission.

--
Lew

On 26/06/2012 9:20 PM, Lew wrote:
> Nope.
>
> My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
> an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
> control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
> a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.
>
> Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
> rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
> transmission.

Why am I not surprised that you'd not only have one, but be snobbish
about it?

Lew <> wrote:

(snip)
> My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
> an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
> control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
> a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.

A little off topic, but...

Rumors are that automatics are now good enough to, in most cases,
get as good or better fuel economy. The computer is better at
figuring out what gear to be in and when than most, if not all,
drivers.

I am not so sure about the inclement weather or passing.
I probably believe that with enough practice you do better,
but without, which is most people, worse. (Passing is almost
a lost art with the number of four lane or more freeways.)

If you don't have enough practice, having to shift while
passing can be distracting from watching for cars coming
the other way.

-- glen

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:52:30 -0400, Highway to Hell
<> wrote:

>On 26/06/2012 9:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>> Nope.
>>
>> My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
>> an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
>> control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
>> a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.
>>
>> Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
>> rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
>> transmission.
>
>Why am I not surprised that you'd not only have one, but be snobbish
>about it?

Hardly snobbish. He gave good reasons and did not lord them over
us.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On 26/06/2012 11:01 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:52:30 -0400, Highway to Hell
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 26/06/2012 9:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
>>> an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
>>> control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
>>> a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.
>>>
>>> Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
>>> rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
>>> transmission.
>>
>> Why am I not surprised that you'd not only have one, but be snobbish
>> about it?
>
> Hardly snobbish.

I beg your *freaking* pardon? "Sniff! It's a rational blah blah for
those of us skilled enough blah blah" is about as
intellectually-snobbish as it gets. He clearly looks down on everyone
who chooses differently than him, in that and several other arenas.

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:23:20 -0400, Highway to Hell
<> wrote:

>On 26/06/2012 11:01 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:52:30 -0400, Highway to Hell
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/06/2012 9:20 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> My car was $800.00 less expensive with a manual transmission than with
>>>> an automatic transmission. Manual gets better fuel economy. It gives better
>>>> control over the vehicle, especially in inclement weather. You can drop to
>>>> a lower gear and accelerate to pass more readily.
>>>>
>>>> Subconscious distrust of complicated technology, indeed! Sniff! It's a
>>>> rational economic decision for those of us skilled enough to drive a manual
>>>> transmission.
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised that you'd not only have one, but be snobbish
>>> about it?
>>
>> Hardly snobbish.
>
>I beg your *freaking* pardon? "Sniff! It's a rational blah blah for
>those of us skilled enough blah blah" is about as
>intellectually-snobbish as it gets. He clearly looks down on everyone

It is a tool that he says he knows how to use.

>who chooses differently than him, in that and several other arenas.

It is a rational choice if you know how to use a manual
transmission.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Andreas Leitgeb <> wrote:
> Eric Sosman <> wrote:
>> On 6/26/2012 12:26 PM, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> Oh, seems I got the motivation wrong, then. If that was your point,
>>> then obviously my essay didn't address that. My motivation was having
>>> some large objects, whose memory could be explicitly freed, as soon as
>>> the memory was no longer needed in the program.
>> And my question, still, is "Why?"
> Why do some people prefer cars with manual gear shift?
> Maybe a (sub)conscious distrust in complicated technology...

Eric, did this and the discussion it triggered answer your question?