Thoughts on WeakMaps

Mark S. Miller erights at google.com
Mon Jun 6 15:30:56 PDT 2011


On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr> wrote:

> Le 06/06/2011 17:41, Mike Samuel a écrit :
> > 2011/6/6 David Bruant <david.bruant at labri.fr>:
> >> The consequence of this second point is wondering whether it's a good
> idea
> >> to standardize WeakMap (instead of Map) at all.
> > Besides a lack of out-of-memory errors and performance, a program
> > using an object key map that doesn't use ephemeron pairs shouldn't
> > behave differently than one that does.  But developers need to have
> > some idea of memory performance when choosing an appropriate
> > collection.  If you're documenting, I would document the behavior
> > around GC upon which devs can rely.
> Not only there is a memory performance difference, but also a key
> enumerability difference. With WeakMaps, keys cannot be enumerated in a
> determinist manner while they can with Map.
>


This enumerability is crucial to the difference in how conservative an
approximation to "will not be used" needs to be to be safe. If we got rid of
WeakMap and only had enumerable Map, the GC would need to determine that a
given map would never be enumerated in order to gc it as aggressively. Put
another way, resource issues aside, WeakMap's contract is merely the
non-enumerable subset of Map's contract. The GC knows that a WeakMap won't
be enumerated because it can't be.



>
> David
> _______________________________________________
> es-discuss mailing list
> es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>



-- 
    Cheers,
    --MarkM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110606/39e3c276/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list