Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Memory Use/Garbage Collection: Java vs Perl

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Sep 03, 2002 at 13:35 UTC ( #194762=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Memory Use/Garbage Collection: Java vs Perl
in thread Memory Use/Garbage Collection: Java vs Perl

You make a very good point! My bad on that bit.

<excuses>

I did say <cite>I think...</cite>

What do you expect at a Perl site? Java expertise :8^)...

</excuses>

Being serious for a moment, if Javac is 'doing the right thing' on that line, that just means that it's memory overhead on recursive subroutines must be even worse than I thought. 4,000 -v- 2,000,000 recursions before blowing the stack is a mind-boggling 500 times less efficient in terms of memory/stack management. I guess I was looking for a rational explanation.

Note: I have made no attempt to verify the numbers

Update:I have confirmed that your assertion is true when using javac from jdk1.3.1 as follows

import java.io.PrintStream; class dupme { public dupme(int i) { // 0 0:aload_0 // 1 1:invokespecial #1 <Method void Object()> // 2 4:getstatic #2 <Field PrintStream System.out> // 3 7:new #3 <Class StringBuffer> // 4 10:dup // 5 11:invokespecial #4 <Method void StringBuffer()> // 6 14:ldc1 #5 <String "I am '"> // 7 16:invokevirtual #6 <Method StringBuffer StringBuffe +r.append(String)> // 8 19:iload_1 // 9 20:invokevirtual #7 <Method StringBuffer StringBuffe +r.append(int)> // 10 23:ldc1 #8 <String "'!"> // 11 25:invokevirtual #6 <Method StringBuffer StringBuffe +r.append(String)> // 12 28:invokevirtual #9 <Method String StringBuffer.toSt +ring()> // 13 31:invokevirtual #10 <Method void PrintStream.println +(String)> // 14 34:new #11 <Class dupme> // 15 37:dup // 16 38:iload_1 // 17 39:iconst_1 // 18 40:iadd // 19 41:invokespecial #12 <Method void dupme(int)> // 20 44:astore_2 // 21 45:return } }

Well It's better than the Abottoire, but Yorkshire!


Comment on Re: Re: Re: Memory Use/Garbage Collection: Java vs Perl
Download Code
Re: Re: Re: Re: Memory Use/Garbage Collection: Java vs Perl
by John M. Dlugosz (Monsignor) on Sep 03, 2002 at 14:53 UTC
    The Perl version needs to concatenate strings, too!
    perl -MO=Deparse,-q -e"print qq(I am $x\n)"
    produces
    print 'I am ' . $x . "\n";
    not print ('I am ' , $x , "\n" ) .

    That is, Perl concatenates the literals and variables together into one string, then calls print with the result.

    —John

      That's interesting, thanks. Am I correct in my (I'm not sure if it's a memory of something I read somewhere, or an assumption I have formed) that Perl will fold string constants?

      From my (brief and un-expert) look at the byte code produced by javac, it seems to be pushing a new copy of the two constants onto the stack (they could be pointers to a single copy, I can't make up my mind) prior to the call to StringBuffer, at each invokation?

      Whereas I assume that Perl would push a reference to a single copy of each.

      Thinking about that, javac is probably pushing a pointer too.



      Well It's better than the Abottoire, but Yorkshire!
        Am I correct in my (I'm not sure if it's a memory of something I read somewhere, or an assumption I have formed) that Perl will fold string constants?

        Apparently it does not.

        perl -MO=Deparse,-q -e"print qq(I am $x\n) . 'and fold this?'"
        it taken as
        print(('I am ' . $x . "\n") . 'and fold this?');
        not print('I am ' . $x . "\nand fold this?").

        —John

Re: Re: Re: Re: Memory Use/Garbage Collection: Java vs Perl
by hossman (Prior) on Sep 04, 2002 at 00:37 UTC
    this whole thread is pretty OT, so i won't let that stop me from pointing out...

    You aren't garunteed to get the behavior you are seeing from every implimentation of Java -- the JLS only requires that string concatination must be implimented using a StringBuffer, not that multiple string concatenations must be optimized into a single StringBuffer.

    ie...

    this... String foo = "bar" + "baz"; is garunteed to be equivilent to this... StringBuffer tmp = new StringBuffer("bar"); tmp.append("baz"); String foo = tmp.toString(); But this... String wb = "yakko" + "wakko" + "dot"; might be implimented as... StringBuffer tmp1 = new StringBuffer("yakko"); tmp1.append("wakko"); String tmp2 = tmp1.toString(); StringBuffer tmp3 = new StringBuffer(tmp2); tmp3.append("dot"); String wb = tmp3.toString();

    You might want to check out JDC TechTip 2002-03-05 particularly it's discussion of "a statement found in the Java Language Specification section 15.18.1.2"

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://194762]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-12-22 16:40 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (121 votes), past polls