64-bit array indices RFE

Discussion in 'Java' started by Thomas Hawtin, Aug 12, 2006.

  1. Adam Warner wrote:
    >
    > It looks like Sun's indifference to 64-bit array indices for Java has been
    > public for a number of years:
    > <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4880587>


    Arrays are low level details, and really could do without being in the
    language at all. I'd go for operator overloading and a class that acts
    as 2^31+-entry array.

    Tom Hawtin
     
    Thomas Hawtin, Aug 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thomas Hawtin

    Adam Warner Guest

    Hi all,

    It looks like Sun's indifference to 64-bit array indices for Java has been
    public for a number of years:
    <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4880587>

    I've just added my vote to the RFE.

    In April I commented:

    The remaining critical omission from the JVM is a new set of arrays
    with 64-bit (long) array indices. This will not affect existing code as
    long array indices are currently a compile time error. While easy to
    implement and critical for some scientific computing tasks I do not see
    Sun taking leadership of this issue. My guess is (an offshoot of) the
    Harmony project will eventually force Sun to address this.

    In 2003 Intel was ridiculed for its claims that it may not be necessary to
    provide 64-bit CPUs to desktop consumers before the end of the decade:
    <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=54835&cid=5371889>

    Not being able to make nor index a 2GB byte array is similarly ludicrous.
    Emulation of contiguous memory using arrays of arrays is a low performance
    workaround. Java is supposed to be a high performance general purpose
    programming environment for today's hardware. In what decade is Sun going
    to recognise this?

    Regards,
    Adam
     
    Adam Warner, Aug 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Adam Warner wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > It looks like Sun's indifference to 64-bit array indices for Java has been
    > public for a number of years:
    > <http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4880587>
    >
    > I've just added my vote to the RFE.
    >
    > In April I commented:
    >
    > The remaining critical omission from the JVM is a new set of arrays
    > with 64-bit (long) array indices. This will not affect existing code as
    > long array indices are currently a compile time error. While easy to
    > implement and critical for some scientific computing tasks I do not see
    > Sun taking leadership of this issue. My guess is (an offshoot of) the
    > Harmony project will eventually force Sun to address this.
    >
    > In 2003 Intel was ridiculed for its claims that it may not be necessary to
    > provide 64-bit CPUs to desktop consumers before the end of the decade:
    > <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=54835&cid=5371889>
    >
    > Not being able to make nor index a 2GB byte array is similarly ludicrous.
    > Emulation of contiguous memory using arrays of arrays is a low performance
    > workaround. Java is supposed to be a high performance general purpose
    > programming environment for today's hardware. In what decade is Sun going
    > to recognise this?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Adam


    This is one area when the computer industry insists on repeating the
    same mistake decade after decade.

    The steps go:

    1. We will never need more than X bytes of memory for systems of this class.

    2. Well, maybe we need more than X bytes of memory for systems of this
    class, but only for multiple segments/objects/chunks each less than X bytes.

    3. Wellllll, OK, I suppose you can have your big arrays, if you really must.

    The computer industry usually has to be dragged kicking and screaming
    from Step 2 to Step 3, despite the continued existence of very large
    jobs that need most of their memory in a few large structures. Once Step
    2 happens, the demand for Step 3 is never far behind, so why not plan
    for it and get ahead?

    Patricia
     
    Patricia Shanahan, Aug 12, 2006
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Carl Rosenberger
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    803
  2. John J. Lee

    SF bug / patch / RFE tracker search?

    John J. Lee, Dec 1, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    364
    Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=
    Dec 1, 2003
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,860
    Timothy Bendfelt
    Jan 19, 2007
  4. KLaus Blank
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    458
  5. Wanderer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    622
    Wanderer
    Mar 24, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page