Hacker News Reader

Does anyone have some hard numbers on the expected performance uplift when using GADTs? Couldn't see any mentioned in the article.

View on HN

The example here is basically an 8-fold memory saving going from `long[]` from `byte[]` - while still retaining polymorphism (whereas in Java the two are unrelated types).

Hard to say exactly how much performance one would get, as that depends on access patterns.

The reason that a byte array is in reality layed out as a (mostly empty) long array in Java, is actually for performance. Computers tend to have their memory aligned at 8 byte intervals and accessing such an address is faster than accessing an address that's at an offset of an 8 byte interval.

Of course it depends on your use case, in some cases a compact byte array performs better anyway, for instance because now you're able to fit it in your CPU cache.

But you can load any byte by loading 8 bytes and shift (v cheap)

> a byte array is in reality layed out as a (mostly empty) long array in Java

Are you saying each byte takes up a word? That is the case in the `char array` in OCaml, but not Java's `byte[]`. AFAIK The size of a byte array is rounded up to words. Byte arrays of length 1-8 all have the same size in a 64-bit machine, then length 7-16 take up one more word.

https://shipilev.net/jvm/objects-inside-out/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com