[pointernil]

.) Just wondering, are there any languages/runtime-systems based on the idea of a fixed memory layout? No heap just "preallocated" buffers? I remember that was / probably still is quite common in the embedded world. I guess it is done easily with globals in C

.) Any profilers providing information reg. the heap-allocs as part of the execution costs?

.) Any Runtimes / VM actually optimizing the layout of those omni-present List/Array/Hashtable/Bag/Set/Dict of MyObjectTypes to have elements laid out as close as possible in memory? (The position of the actual objects that is not only the pointers to the objects within the containers)

Are we "safe" as heap allocs / gc / memory handling is really of no significant impact compared to other issues? Or is memory handling an large part of the "What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away." story?

[Peaker]

.) At our workplace, we use preallocation for almost everything. When we do dynamic allocations, typically it is from free-lists from pools that we pre-allocate.

Almost all of our allocation/freeing costs are cheap O(1). Pretty much everything is zero-copy. That is why I cringe a little when I hear that GC's are "faster than manual MM". Because manual MM done well can eliminate almost all of the costs of memory management.

I also cringe a little when I see "malloc" deep inside C functions.

I really like the basic convention in C that you should pass needed allocations in as arguments (and it is virtually always possible) allowing these allocations to be members of of members of other allocations, aggregating allocations so there are much fewer.

.) Information regarding heap-allocs is relatively easy to obtain with "oprofile", look up the time spent in "malloc" and "free" and the related functions underneath them.

.) C makes it very easy to use an array of the values you want, rather than an indirection. For Lists, I don't think that is a useful idea. For hash tables, given that many entries are empty, I think it is a better trade-off to have your hash array as an indirection, though the buckets could be explicitly put together. And so on.

I often encountered dynamic allocation overheads are noticeable or even huge chunks of my runtime when I had to work with code that used them. Reducing the dynamic allocation really helps. We're not safe, we need to work towards it explicitly.

[brent_noorda]

No heap? Hmmm... As the slidedeck pointed out, much time is spent in both allocation and copying of memory, and in practice those things are most often strings. Given that 1) the languages under consideration declare strings as immutable, and 2) the strings enter the system at fixed points (e.g. source code or external inputs), and 3) exit at fixed points (e.g. sent out a socket).... Imagine a system that does not allow heap allocation or memory copying at all. Just doesn't allow them!

    var structure = "dog" + "house"
    print structure

does not need to allocate or move memory. That's how the script languages do it now, but should they? All the really need to do is print "dog" and then print "house", there's nothing that says those 8 letters need to be ever adjacent in memory.

Since it's so darn easy (and sloppy) to call malloc() and memcpy() the script-engine writers are going to keep doing so until they're given a MacrocosmicGod-like environment that won't allow malloc() or memcpy() and so will have to come up with a clever workaround. maybe it will be something like linked-lists of immutable blocks of memory? Something like ropes? Something smarter than that?

Anyway, script-engine writers, please forget that malloc() and memcpy() exist, and see what you come up with. It'll be wonderful. (P.S. I was in the script-engine business for a dozen years and didn't solve the problem, but that's just because I'm not smart enough.)