Hacker News Reader

"a dereference to a deleted object will either succeed as if that very object was not yet deleted, or result in a DanglingReferenceException."

How can you do something this stupid in 2017? All this will do is cause irreproducible bugs that only occur under memory pressure. Just drop the fucking OR and always delete.

View on HN

As they describe in the paper, if you want that behavior you can get it, but it comes at a cost. If you would like the softer guarantees (could be exception or not, but never invalid data), you can get better performance.

What they describe is a knob that lets you trade off static assurance against dynamic assurance, for performance. If you have good static tools (e.g. something like Rust's borrow checker, or various C++ tools I know nothing about) you can confidently not care one way or the other and take the performance.

The problem is "not yet deleted" is not very strictly defined in a multi-threaded world...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com