Old comments about Java

[Sean Kelly]

They kinda already do. Look into how core.mutex works. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/04/11 8:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/23/2011 4:43 PM, bearophile wrote:
>>> First, they impose a full word of overhead on each and every object,
>>> just in
>>> case someone somewhere sometime wants to grab a lock on that object.
>>> What,
>>> you say that you know that nobody outside of your code will ever get a
>>> pointer to this object, and that you do your locking elsewhere, and
>>> you have
>>> a zillion of these objects so you'd like them to take up as little
>>> memory as
>>> possible? Sorry. You're screwed. [I have not yet understood why D
>>> shared this
>>> Java design choice.]
>> 
>> The extra pointer slot is a handy place for all kinds of things, not
>> just a mutex. Currently, it is also used for the "signals and slots"
>> implementation. Andrei and I have discussed using it for a ref counting
>> system (though we decided against that for other reasons).
> 
> That may be so, but it would be nice if the programmer had control over whether or not they want to use that slot.