The object header overhead was always present and expensive in massive arrays - the classic example would be the Point class that has two "double x, y". Realistically the value classes make sense most (only) if they are placed in arrays. In order to use tons of points you'd end up having two arrays, double[] x, double[] y... or go even with direct buffers.

Personally, I don't care about the tiny optimizations possible in cases of just using few of them, e.g. Integer, as int[] is an option, and even writing custom maps where the keys are placed the said array ain't difficult.

As for performance, often times I had to PrintAssembly (the article mentions that at the bottom) to ensure the compiler did its bests, e.g. optimizing away boundary checks, inlining calls, etc.

>What changed, why suddenly they adopt C++ features they explicitly excluded?

Project Valhalla, which includes the effort to add value types was announced in 2014. They've been working on it for a while.

As for "what changed" ...

Back in 1990s when Java was conceived, there was an idea that CPUs in desktops had plenty of extra cycles that were being wasted and could therefore be used to reduce mental load on developers. It was the same "cpus are cheaper than developers" idea that is repeated today with "tokens/cpu are cheaper than developers". With that philosophy, James Gosling talked about Java's "everything-is-an-object" as a mental simplification for developers. All the extra indirections of pointer-chasing to box unbox primitives and/or iterate through arrays of objects wasn't seen as a penalty (again, "CPUs are cheap; devs are expensive").

However, the later evolution in 2000s of CPU hardware vs RAM hardware changed that performance tradeoff thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_memory#Memory_wa...

Now having value types that are contiguous in RAM is a big deal for performance. Avoid a bunch of pointer chasing. Even C++ best practices were affected. E.g. the traditional tradeoffs you learned from from classroom textbooks of linked-lists being faster than arrays for middle-of-list insertions was no longer always correct in the new world where CPUs are caching adjacent RAM areas to try to reduce the memory wall issue. So O(n) could be faster than O(log n) depending on the size of the data structure and interactions with RAM pre-fetch, etc.

This was pretty much always wrong. Nobody writing performance critical code in Java trusts the compiler to magically figure things out, and the sort of code you arrive at if you want Java to go fast is generally unidiomatic.

Java is so dynamic that it's impossible to prove a class will only be used in "value friendly" ways. When objects have no identity the meaning of `==` is different, and the compiler would have to do some kind of whole program analysis to find out if there is any way an instance of the class could ever be checked for equality.

That's hard when you have type erasure and polymorphism and runtime class loading. And even if they pulled it off it would blow up compile times and be programmer unfriendly because adding one line could deoptimize an important class defined in another package. So they decided to bite the bullet and add a way to statically opt in for faster but incompatible behavior.

> don't worry about low-level stuff like value/reference classes

Part of the issue is that this was never low-level stuff. When you're selecting between the two you're making a semantic choice, and that's not something a compiler can do for you.

Even a smart compiler can't break the program semantics, and without a closed world assumption it simply can't assume that an entirely different part of the program doesn't expect to observe object identity for a type.

Java is adding small, orthogonal features that amount to the same feature set as value types in other languages, but can be cherry-picked into existing code for partial advantages without significant changes. These value classes are still nullable, lack a guaranteed layout, and can't be observed torn, unlike in C++/C#/Go.

It was not at all “suddenly”. The discussions about explicitly defining value types because escape analysis is insufficient have been going on for at least a decade.

Yes, this was the idiom in the 90s, but Escape Analysis has not proven to be powerful enough to optimize away identity.

And looking at all the edge-cases and possible data-races via tearing, declaring something as a value must be an explicit design decision that cannot be inferred by a compiler or optimizer alone.

I don't think that was ever the case...value(primitive) types were there from day 1 and the given reason that it is too much overhead to use objects