Because I have not written my own memory model, why are you refuting them when you cannot explain why they are wrong?
What I mean with C++ not being able to do atomic parallelism on OO is that you need a VM with GC to do that.
The best way to do atomic (and avoid cache misses in one go) is to use primitive arrays (char/int/float) so C++ has zero value, I'm going back to C.
The guy quoted in the first quote is the proffessor that rewrote the whole JVM with a new memory model to add concurrent package in 1.5, if you don't believe him you are on you own.
I'm still waiting for C++ guys to actually use Java on the server and still claim C++ is better. crickets
What does that even mean? A memory model isn't a library.
why are you refuting them when you cannot explain why they are wrong?
There is no evidence to refute. You keep making claims with no explanation, no reasoning and no evidence at all. This isn't how reality works. When you claim something the burden of proof is on you. Extraordinary claims (like java being 12 times faster than C or C++) require extraordinary evidence. You gave zero evidence.
The best way to do atomic (and avoid cache misses in one go) is to use primitive arrays (char/int/float)
This is you repeating the same thing (even though it makes no sense), this isn't evidence.
This isn't even how CPUs or their instructions work. Data types only matter in atomic math instructions on integers, but you lumped floats in there for some reason too. Arrays have nothing to do with it (atomic should have been a clue). Why do you believe this?
so C++ has zero value, I'm going back to C.
What is it that makes any difference here? Why can't you demonstrate anything with an actual program? Use godbolt.org and you can prove what you're saying.
The guy quoted in the first quote is the proffessor that rewrote the whole JVM with a new memory model to add concurrent package in 1.5, if you don't believe him you are on you own.
I believe actual evidence. You seem to have so little understanding of these things that if this person knows what they are talking about, you must not understand what they are saying. Show something instead of making insane claims.
I'm still waiting for C++ guys to actually use Java on the server and still claim C++ is better. crickets
I use C++ 'on the server' but it's bizarre that you think this has anything to do with the conversation. The things you keep saying are not just technically incorrect, they have no connection to how anything actually works.
The reason I'm preaching without proof is that I have run a service with 350.000 customers (1100 concurrent) that proved all this.
I don't need to prove anything to myself, when I know it is true because I witnessed it.
You have sunk cost so obviously you want tme to prove that I'm right, but I don't have the time. It's too complex and time will solve all proofs automatically.
What I mean with C++ not being able to do atomic parallelism on OO is that you need a VM with GC to do that.
The best way to do atomic (and avoid cache misses in one go) is to use primitive arrays (char/int/float) so C++ has zero value, I'm going back to C.
The guy quoted in the first quote is the proffessor that rewrote the whole JVM with a new memory model to add concurrent package in 1.5, if you don't believe him you are on you own.
I'm still waiting for C++ guys to actually use Java on the server and still claim C++ is better. crickets