[FRIAM] [friam-owner at redfish.com: Re: deployable and open source ABMs]

[Russell Standish]

 ----- Forwarded message from friam-owner at redfish.com -----

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on 
	hells-dell.boundaryrider.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME 
	autolearn=no version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: rks at localhost
Delivered-To: rks at localhost.bigpond.net.au
Envelope-to: lists at hpcoders.com.au
Delivery-date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:51:06 +1100
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] deployable and open source ABMs
From: friam-owner at redfish.com
To: lists at hpcoders.com.au
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:51:41 -0500
Precedence: bulk
X-BeenThere: friam at redfish.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9.cp1
List-Id: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
	<friam_redfish.com.redfish.com>
X-List-Administrivia: yes
Errors-To: friam-bounces at redfish.com
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - madrid.hostgo.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - hpcoders.com.au
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - redfish.com
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 

Your email addresss was not recognized as a subscriber to the FRIAM
list. It's possible you are subscribed under a different address. If
you would like to send emails to the list from this email address,
please send an email to friam-admin at redfish.com with a list of emails
that you would like to be permitted. Sorry for the hassle but we're
trying to prevent spam emails from getting on the list. Thanks.


Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:50:49 +1100
From: Russell Standish <lists at hpcoders.com.au>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] deployable and open source ABMs
Mail-Followup-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
	<friam at redfish.com>
In-Reply-To: <f16528920611251153h5668effas7c32a37699fabbbf at mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Sat, Nov 25, 2006 at 12:53:18PM -0700, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>   3. Java's performance, because of it's garbage collection design, will
>   always be inferior to that of C, Fortran, or C++, which, as you point out,
>   are the languages of choice for HPC implementations.

I heard this one said before, but don't really understand it. Sure
unpredictability of garbage collection is problematic for interactive
applications, but for batch processing runs this is not a factor.

Isn't GC no more or less expensive than C++'s delete operator? Or is
the issue that in C++ one can supply one's own allocators for objects,
optimising it for certain cases (eg all objects being the same size
for instance).

Cheers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	 
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------




----- End forwarded message -----

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	 
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------