Hacker News Reader

Comment by NerdsCentral | Hacker News Reader

My point is that I never said the GC was bad. I said I showed up issue with it. As I explained in detail in my post - I was actually researching something else. BTW I did experiment with 2 other garbage collectors - the default and the incremental and gave results for all three, which I think is quite thorough given that I was actually researching something else.

I would be just great if someone who is coming at what I am saying with description of the weakness would give a suggestion rather than just shoot down the finding which I never said was anything other than just a finding.

View on HN

This is how research works. You report your results, and people critique it. Part of that critique is methodology. That you were researching something else, or that we're not giving suggestions to improve it is irrelevant.

And you're right, you did compare it to two other collectors - I initially thought it was the same collector with different settings. So what are the assumptions these collectors make? Presumably the different collectors are supposed to be used under different scenarios. Does your benchmark fit into the scenarios the G1 collector should be used? Why or why not?

Actually, it is relevant that I was researching something else. I have published papers on research; in that process one crosses all the ts etc. In this case I am saying - here it is - if you are interested you can run with it. That is very different and so I think it is quite reasonable to expect constructive rather than negative criticism.

As for the G1, I have chosen to continue and look at the issue in more detail. So far, it would appear that I cannot find a situation where it offers a benefit over other collectors. However, I am happy to accept that there might be one out there. I will switch over to the Popper approach and attempt to disprove that the G1 performs badly. If I get conclusive result either way - I will report on it.

Constructive criticism and negative criticism are not mutually exclusive - negative in the sense that what's being said is "this is something you did wrong." If you mean out-right attacks or insults, I haven't seen that. Perhaps you're interpreting it that way since it's something you did.

Hi Scott,

I think I am reacting to the arrogance in the language. "This is how research works." is what you said. That is quite presumptuousness of you to say that because your language naturally suggests you are telling me something I don't already know. This is the case with this comment thread in general.

It could be cultural. In the UK, the way you and the other people on this particular comment thread frame words is really quite rude. I don't know where you are from so I cannot comment as it if you would know that or not.

If one were to say "Surely, this is how research works." then on offence would be taken. Or "As I am sure you know, this is how research works." But no, the words immediately speak to an assumption of ignorance on my part. That is offensive and I take offence.

I suspect also that news groups are easy places for people to make such mistakes. I have no idea how you think of me when typing. Do you imagine a 40 something doctor of computational quantum-mechanics trying to squeeze out a quick post before starting a day's work on the parser for a compiler for his client? Maybe you see a spotty teenager trying to wade beyond his depth?

I don't know you and you don't know me and so I suspect a little more automatic respect on both parts would not hurt.

Best wishes - AJ

If I thought you knew it, I wouldn't say it. I don't see why that's offensive - I can see why you wouldn't like it, but your comments make it sound like you've never handled this kind of criticism before. Prefacing my statement with "surely" or "as I'm sure you know" would frankly be disingenuous, because I certainly did think you had not dealt with academic-style peer review.

This style of criticism - no frills, no pleasantries, not even necessarily any suggestions for improvements, just "this is what you did wrong" - is common when reviewing research. I, in fact, have five such reviews of my own work I need to rebut.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com