Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects? Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 01:43:46 -0400 Organization: supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations Lines: 135 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: iGmuHcWtyc5pbaBTyNZhJQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: WinVN 0.99.12z (x86 32bit) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5766 On 29/06/2011 1:04 AM, Lew wrote: > Lew wrote: >>> Ergo the claim that the monitor doubles the allocation size is bogus. > > supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations > wrote: >> I never made or agreed with such a claim, so this is another straw man. > > No, but you argued with me when I refuted that claim. True, but not *because* you refuted that claim; rather, because in doing so you chose to err just as far in the other direction. > So it's not any kind of straw man, Poppycock. > I also never said that you did make that claim, as such. Twaddle. > But you disagreed with my refutation of it, putting you in that topic. I disagreed, specifically, with "most objects are much larger than 4 bytes", and with good reason. > And there are other people in the world besides yourself, Irrelevant since we're discussing, specifically, your argument with me. > you self-involved little man. Gratuitous and irrelevant ad hom. >> Where's your numbers? Where's your data? What's good for the goose is >> good for >> the gander... > > I asked first. And I provided. > The one making the claim that there is 100% overhead, or > any percent overhead, needs to substantiate the claim. I've substantiated it plenty, for example the overhead doesn't drop below 5% for an ArrayList until it has at least 30 items in it. (Actually complicated by how the array gets grown, if you consider empty space in the array to be more overhead; the overhead then jumps to over 50% if the ArrayList gets a 33rd item, if it doubles at powers of 2 if not constructed with a specific initial capacity, and will average 25%, actually.) > I've already proven the 100% claim false, as have you, Irrelevant. > but no one has proven any actual number. Folderol. I gave some math in my previous post indicating when many common structures such as Strings have overhead drop below 5% -- for Strings, it's at 60 characters. A very large proportion of the Strings in typical systems I've seen are shorter than that. > I haven't asserted an actual number, so have nothing to > substantiate. So you defend your lack of substantiation of your claims with the vagueness of those claims?! > Show me the numbers. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. >> What the OP claimed is not a point against me, because I cannot be held >> responsible for something someone else said. So that's irrelevant, >> i.e. it's a > > If you disagree with the refutation of that point, then you are on that > topic, and you have an obligation to be responsible for that. I disagree with a specific claim you made *in* your refutation, but not with the fact of the refutation. Please do at least *try* to get that straight in your head. To recap: There is a difference between disagreeing with "the monitor overhead is less than 100%" and disagreeing with "most objects are much larger than 4 bytes". And all of this is ignoring the fact that the OP likely meant the monitor doubled the size of the object *header*, not of the *object*. Though his claim for "double the GC cycles" is highly dubious; even actually doubling the sizes of all the objects in the system wouldn't tend to do that with a generational GC and most objects being short-lived enough to die in the eden space. >> straw man, in this branch of the thread. > > You keep using that term. I am not sure that it means what you think it > means. You're not sure of a lot of things you should be, and, unfortunately, sure of a lot of things you shouldn't be. >> Define "the main point"? I'd define it as "whatever my opponent >> asserted in > > Interesting that you frame this in terms of "opponents". We're not > supposed to be opponents but partners in exploration of the truth. Tell that to the guy that was the first to start insinuating that maybe his opponent was intentionally lying. Who was that again? Oh. That's right. > Apparently your purpose is to turn this into some kind of contest, and > you hold an oppositional frame. Talking to yourself is a sign of a disturbed mind, you know. > I am interested in increasing knowledge here, not doing battle, Funny. From here it looks like exactly the opposite is true. Consider these questions: 1. Who brought some actual data into the discussion upon request? 2. Who didn't, and defended that by saying his claims were too vague for him to be able to do so? 3. Who was the first to start suggesting that the other guy might be deliberately telling falsehoods? 4. Who started slinging around gratuitous insults like "you self-involved little man"? > PLONK. 5. Who would rather stick his fingers in his ears and shout "LA LA LA!" instead of having an intelligent debate on the subject?