comp.lang.c++

"Lew" wrote in message
news:TdidnYebe-kmnZzVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Chris Thomasson wrote:
>> "Lew" wrote in message
>> news:JpidnTPnKoyZXp3VnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Chris Thomasson wrote:
>>>> Before you answer, try doing some research.
>>>
>>> Chris, you are on the edge of being PLONKed.
>>
>> How does research hurt me, or anybody else? Even the hard core gurus with
>> millions of dollars _still_ invest in R&D. IMVHO, research is fun. Why
>> should I get killfiled? You know what you know. If I insulted you, I am
>> sorry.
>
> It was the insolence of the "try doing some..." idiom

Sorry about that.


> , not the suggestion to do research, combined with the fact that you were
> telling one of the three or four contributors to the Java newsgroups who
> have done the most research of anyone. Almost certainly orders of
> magnitude more research into how the Java 'new' operator works than you
> have done.

I know that the Java 'new' operator can be made to scale. The _specific_
implementation details I was presented with in this thread seemed to suggest
that a single pointer was being mutated in order to grab memory chunks. I
know that this technique does not scale well at all. I also know that Java
can use many different distributed methods that can scale FAR beyond the
non-distributed stuff presented in this thread. Java is not bound to any
memory allocation algorithm in particular. I read an outline of a scheme
that does not scale well, I made sure to comment on it.