Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Optimization by programmers (was: Styles of addressing) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 06:34:30 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 34 Message-ID: <867bkmwsd5.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <1788467534-5857@newsgrouper.org> <1788484298-5857@newsgrouper.org> <1788570532-5857@newsgrouper.org> <117juut$2erud$1@dont-email.me> <117p8dq$3f0og$1@paganini.bofh.team> <117pq4r$gi10$1@dont-email.me> <117thvb$1ocse$1@dont-email.me> <2026Sep10.192237@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <1736alhffrj7iuhfsesdo31bofc0m8pr12@4ax.com> <2026Sep11.083321@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:34:34 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="2558985"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dS5FlRqqu1nLDzbQWKbwAohgmhW0gyrE="; posting-host="d22a44f9db2d80b4aae7023976fc11e4" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:udgqn1hgbKxnLqMlGen0F5gqLuk= sha1:uCpbEM6PUqkpOxyrzaTPtiG4Dno= sha256:xf1d4TH6jeR8RSXLTCpmvSsCGt9mVDgbimV7rtIVCcA= sha1:LZo55xd6uKzqxtKeXLoUEKSRrPQ= sha256:j/S2u6VNgyI3F1qSv4H1CdTyoGrBleaEx5CrMvpO4ZY= Xref: csiph.com comp.arch:118034 George Neuner writes: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 06:33:21 GMT, anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at > (Anton Ertl) wrote: > >> George Neuner writes: >> >> >>> Witness the proliferation of languages offering "managed environments" >>> offering such niceties as automatic storage management, automatic lock >>> handling (serialized object access), "comprehensions", etc., and large >>> standard libraries >> >> I don't see any problem with that. These features help to implement >> functionality in less programming time (and with less maintenance >> time) than without using these features, and that's true for >> programmers at any competence level. >> >>> without which the average programmer largely >>> would be incapable of producing a working program. >> >> That's pure elitism. > > Really? That's not my conclusion ... it was the result found by a > number of university studies and developer surveys. > > > Most studies involving GC have shown that programmers working on short > timelines are less likely to produce a correct [or sometimes even just > complete] program using manual memory management vs using GC. Yeah. The studies I'm aware of that try to measure such things show not having to do manual memory management gives a productivity improvement of somewhere between 50 and 100 percent.