there was nothing to do today, so tried making a simple parser for an almost json type language in #zig
sirlan <( merry gay )
@sirlan.derg.social.ap.brid.gy
75 followers 24 following 1.4K posts
born to rawr capitalism is a fuck 芒果 eat them all 20XX I am dragon 255,128 360,480 saved screenshots zoomer est. 2003 _(do the math for my age)_ (won't boost images […] 🌉 bridged from ⁂ derg.social/@sirlan, follow @ap.brid.gy to interact
!["live [gek with open mouth] reaction"
getk with open mouth screenshot](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:xn5siobjpb462ki7sladxsjz/bafkreidmgt5rfu4ezidrnpc3hdgrantkcx7b63vl2p5hiak2egbodmatte)
![the "performance" secion on the wikipedia page for "manual memory management":
Many advocates of manual memory management argue that it affords superior performance when compared to automatic techniques such as garbage collection. Traditionally latency was the biggest advantage, but this is no longer the case. Manual allocation frequently has superior locality of reference.[citation needed]
Manual allocation is also known to be more appropriate for systems where memory is a scarce resource, due to faster reclamation. Memory systems can and do frequently "thrash" as the size of a program's working set approaches the size of available memory; unused objects in a garbage-collected system remain in an unreclaimed state for longer than in manually managed systems, because they are not immediately reclaimed, increasing the effective working set size.
Manual management has a number of documented performance disadvantages:
Calls to delete and such incur an overhead each time they are made, this overhead can be amortized in garbage collection cycles. This is especially true of multithreaded applications, where delete calls must be synchronized.
The allocation routine may be more complicated, and slower. Some garbage collection schemes, such as those with heap compaction, can maintain the free store as a simple array of memory (as opposed to the complicated implementations required by manual management schemes).
Latency is a debated point that has changed over time, with early garbage collectors and simple implementations performing very poorly compared to manual memory management, but sophisticated modern garbage collectors often performing as well or better than manual memory management.[citation needed]
Manual allocation does not suffer from the long "pause" times that occur in simple stop-the-world garbage collection, although modern garbage collectors have collection cycles which are often not noticeable.[citation needed]
Manual memory management and garbage collection both suffer from potentially unbounded deallocation times – manual memory management because deallocating a single object may require deallocating its members, and recursively its members' members, etc., while garbage collection may have long collection cycles. This is especially an issue in real time systems, where unbounded collection cycles are generally unacceptable; real-time garbage collection is possible by pausing the garbage collector, while real-time manual memory management requires avoiding large deallocations, or manually pausing deallocation.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:xn5siobjpb462ki7sladxsjz/bafkreiaifubfx6yor5yflnuzgxdsyx3j25x7ffcitkozxagsxmwyogh2jm)
