Andrew S. Townley wrote:
> Yeah.  About that... actually the first time I tried to run anything
> with JRuby (and this codebase), it said that I needed more heap size
> with everything I tried (1024m, 2048m) up to 4096m.  I've no idea what
> the issue was, but it seems to hang/get confused when I get exceptions
> from time to time.  I had it set that way (4096m) the first time I ran
> it, but then I tried it again with the defaults to see if it would work.
> Fortunately, it did.

Odd...if you see it eating up all available memory again find us on 
#jruby on FreeNode IRC.

> So far, it doesn't seem as forgiving or as informational as MRI when
> handling exceptions, though.  At this stage, I'm learning to translate,
> however. :)

Yeah, when it comes to stack overflows and out-of-memory we have limited 
options on the JVM; both are pretty fatal for the thread that encounters 
them, so the best we can do is say "oops, we used too much" and provide 
information on flags. But it seems like something else may have been 
broken if it was eating up over 4GB.

> Once I get more of the UI working (at the moment, I only have one of
> about 10 views "ported" to JFC/Swing from Ruby/GNOME2) and start having
> something that I can actually use, I might start messing with
> performance tweaks.  It eventually needs to run (and run well) on
> machines like my laptop:
> 
> Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     U7700  @ 1.33GHz (normally ~800MHz)

We'll definitely want to look at ways to reduce the in-memory working 
set. If you can't shrink things down enough with your upcoming changes, 
come back and we'll see about doing some heap profiling and investigate 
whether something in JRuby is taking more memory than it ought to.

> Still, I'm chuffed, because I was actually expecting it to be slower.

Well, I'm glad you gave it a try :) Keep in touch and maybe we can find 
specific ways to improve it even more.

- Charlie