Hacker News Reader

Kind of, there is some fun tracking down JVM specific implementation behaviours.

JIT, GC and extension differences do give space enough for head scratching, although not as much in other ecosystems.

If you have a second, I'm curious to learn more about your head scratching experiences with JVM. I want to make a program that I can trust will still run the exact same (bug-for-bug compatible) many years in the future without maintenance. One approach is to make it completely bug-free using a formal verifier for a strict formalization of C, but this is extraordinary effort and there is no guarantee that bugs in the stack of garbage my app sits atop and the libraries I call (SDL2?) will cause unwanted user observable behavior. Truly bug-free is actually stricter than what I really need; I just need exact bug-for-bug compatibility so that my bugs always are deterministic. It seems with the JVM at least, the bug-for-bug determinism is really good (except when it obviously isn't and can't be, like thread scheduling, network communications, ...). For client GC there is a low-latency guarantee and people seem happy. Have you found the Java GC is not all it's reputed to be? There are so many huge companies with billions invested in Java and its bug-for-bug compatibility, I think it could easily still be around in a 100 years along with COBOL and is a safe investment for individuals who value longevity above what is trendiest and shiniest.

You can start here,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machine...

Then dive into the public documentation of each of those listed there, specially the ones that aren't plain rebranding of OpenJDK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com