Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #5127
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: Managed-Code Bloat |
| Date | 2011-06-08 11:23 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <isoesh$r6u$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <isis49$cpq$1@dont-email.me> <isjjl5$sm1$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <%5nHp.987$SG4.99@newsfe03.iad> <ismbqb$7ao$1@news.albasani.net> <133vu611kni8sq0r8b0u8kl6ic04t7ikgp@4ax.com> |
On 6/8/2011 7:53 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:18:29 -0700, BGB<cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> for example, in C, a string is just a glob of 8-bit characters in
>> memory, and so doesn't really take much more memory than the space to
>> store these characters.
>
> It can be, but it need not be. Some systems have a different
> CHARBITS value. Some systems have each character in a larger data
> chunk.
>
yes, but the issue can be restated as "on pretty much any HW either
programmers or users are likely to deal with".
in this case, it is very unlikely to need to worry about HW with
characters with non-8-bit characters.
much like, the vast majority of normal computers also run x86, and on
x86, bytes are 8-bit (likewise goes for PPC, ARM, ...). everything else?
mostly irrelevant.
relatively under-used features, such as wide-character strings ("wchar_t
*str=L"...";" and likewise), are also being disregarded.
this means, in a general case:
C will need 8 bits per character, with little overhead apart from
in-memory storage;
Java will need 16 bits per character.
generally, Java stores String's as a class instance, where the class
holds an array. so, one also has to add in the overhead of storing a
instance and an array (for example, an 'Object', and the respective
memory headers for an instance and an array).
combining all of these, a Java implementation will generally have a
somewhat higher overhead in the cost of storing a string, as per the
number of in-memory bytes.
not that this may be a killer in itself, but it may add up...
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 18:47 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-06 06:40 -0300
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-06 23:04 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-06 17:41 -0300
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 11:13 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-07 07:08 -0300
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Silvio <silvio@moc.com> - 2011-06-07 09:40 +0200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-06-07 06:08 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 11:35 -0400
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 10:47 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-06 18:21 +0000
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 11:48 -0400
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-06-08 18:06 +0000
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-11 14:00 -0400
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 10:18 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 11:59 -0400
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 11:22 -0400
Re: Managed-Code Bloat rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2011-06-08 21:45 +0100
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 10:17 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 16:37 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 12:06 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 17:44 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 13:38 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 20:13 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 15:41 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-06-06 20:47 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 01:06 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 23:53 +1200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 16:04 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> - 2011-06-08 13:04 -0400
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Michal Kleczek <kleku75@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 09:23 +0200
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 03:54 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> - 2011-06-07 10:10 +0100
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 00:37 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-07 07:31 -0300
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 16:18 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-06-07 20:50 -0300
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-06-08 07:53 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 11:23 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-06 16:54 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-06-06 19:24 -0700
Re: Managed-Code Bloat Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> - 2011-06-07 15:44 +1200
csiph-web