Hacker News Reader

In Chrome today, as an example, the C++ based DOM and V8 (Javascript ) objects are using different GCs. Obviously it is a pain point, but the situation of having different GCs for DOM and language objects is not new with Web Assembly.

View on HN

I mean, as of Oilpan the V8 garbage collector marks C++ objects by calling trace hooks, as I understand things. That isn't an option for Web Assembly, which doesn't have access to the V8 garbage collector in that way (except via the wasm GC proposal; in fact, that's fundamentally what the wasm GC proposal is).

It's also worth mentioning WASM has no GC today.

My amd64 and ARM CPUs also don't have it.

On languages where the algorithm is an implementation detail, one can make use of reference counting with a cycle collector, which are just a few hundred lines.

Implementing one is pretty simple, making it perform well is another matter.

Unlike your real processor though, you can't directly access memory or ensure its absolute location. You can make an advanced GC that is slow or a basic one that is not.

Which is good. You can always implement GC inside it, but personally, for performance-intensive computing, I do not want GC inside WASM unless eplicitly enabled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com