Develop Reference

Am I missing some benefits of static fields? [closed]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working through C# in a Nutshell from Joseph Albahari & Ben Albahari which has been a great book by the way and am reading through the topic on static fields in C#. They have this example code,
public class Panda
{
public string name;
public static int population;
public Panda(string n)
{
name = n;
population = population + 1;
}
}
So I understand that the more instances of Panda that you instantiate the greater population will be become since it is shared amongst all objects of type Panda but now to my question.
Why? I just can't understand why I would ever want to utilize such behavior in an application. It seems like a confusing way to track a global variable within the object itself. Am I misunderstanding the potential benefits of a static field? What are some cases where this would be useful and not confusing?

I think it's best to review what happens under the hood first.
If you create a static class, a single instance is created at runtime. It happens whenever you try to use the type the first time and is used from there on. This can come in handy if you want to, say, lazy load a shared resource for instance. It also guarantees (via compiler and runtime) that you have one and only one instance at all times.
If the class is not static but you use static members, you can construct new instances, but a "static version" is maintained for you in the background. This is useful for situations in which you need to either keep track of something or if you want to share something across instances or even other code if you make the member public.
In terms of performance for instance, it could be really useful if you need to speed up your program and realize (through object count) that you are instantiating an object that never changes 100 times. Maybe you want to show your user how many Pandas have been born. You could in theory keep a count somewhere else but if you think about it, you will need another object anyways so it makes sense to keep all related information and logic together. Besides, you could have a more general type that breaks into derived ones and you may want to track all of them without having to keep adding logic.
Consider the following example:
public abstract class Animal
{
private static int _count;
protected Animal()
{
IncrementCount();
}
protected static void IncrementCount()
{
_count++;
}
public int WorldPopulation()
{
return _count;
}
}
public class Dog : Animal
{
}
public class Cat : Animal
{
}
public class Bird : Animal
{
}
If I was to create a Dog, Cat and Bird instance and then check the value of the WorldPopulation() method, I would get 3.
The Singleton pattern is also commonly implemented using this approach. It allows you to maintain a single instance while containing the construction internally:
public class SingletonSample
{
private SingletonSample()
{
}
private static SingletonSample _instance;
public static SingletonSample Instance
{
get
{
if(_instance == null)
_instance = new SingletonSample();
return _instance;
}
}
public bool IsThisTrue()
{
return true;
}
}
Notice you can't access the IsThisTrue() method via Class name, you need an instance and it cannot be created directly. It can only be created internally by the class itself:
//Object construction occurs the first time you access the "Instance" property
SingletonSample.Instance.IsThisTrue();
I hope that helps.

I just can't understand why I would ever want to utilize such
behavior in an application.
You'd never want to know the panda-count in a game? What about high-score?
Now, whether static fields are the best approach is a different manner - there are alternative patterns, but they tend to be far more complex to build and manage.

Short answer:
Consider that a cache is a place to store the result of computation. Caches are useful whenever the computation is expensive, but the storage is cheap. In C#, a static variable is just a cache for computations about a live system.
Longer answer:
Theoretically, we could discover anything that we wanted to know about a running system by searching for all objects, and then performing a computation with respect to some subset. Since this is exactly what the garbage collector does, a hypothetical CLI that provided the right hooks into the garbage collector would obviate the need for static variables.
For example, suppose we wanted to know how many Widget objects that we’ve created. Well, all we would need to do is ask the GC for a list of all of the live objects, then filter the list for objects of type Widget, and then count the Widgets.
But there are a couple of problems in the example: Firstly, some of the Widget objects might not be live (not reachable, thus not able to undergo state changes), but we would need to keep them around just for counting purposes. Even if the size of each Widget instance was only a single bit, we would still need 122KB of memory if we needed to keep a count of, say, one million Widgets (since a CLR object is at least 4 bytes, we would need almost 4MB just to keep track of the count). On the other hand, a 20-bit variable is enough to count up one million. This is a savings of 99.99% (actually 99.99999% in the case of the actual CLR). Secondly, garbage collection can be an expensive operation. Even if we avoid the overhead of memory compaction, we would just need to pause the system in general.
So, hopefully, it’s now easy to see why we would want to have the ability to cache certain computations about a live system, and hence the usefulness of static variables.
Having said all that, it is often the case that it's better to just recompute things rather than caching the results in a static variables because of the way CPU caching works.

here is an example of how i used static objects.
I had task to create an uploader handler with progress bar.
and progress bar had show up to all users that are in the site.
so a created the upload operation in a new thread and then appended the result of the operation to a static object(Progress bar) that are outside the thread, the progress bar will show up to all users that are viewing the site.
more info and exemplar could be found here
What is the use of static variable in C#? When to use it? Why can't I declare the static variable inside method?

Store data inside long number or class instance for better performance

I'm writing an AI for my puzzle game and I'm facing the following situation:
Currently, I have a class, Move, which represents a move in my game, which has similiar logic to chess.
In the Move class, I'm storing the following data:
The move player color.
The moving piece.
The origin position on the board.
The destination position on the board.
The piece that has been killed by performing this move (if any).
The move score.
In addition, I got some methods which describes amove, such as IsResigned, Undo etc.
This move instance is being passed along in my AI, which is based on the Alpha Beta algorithm. Therfore, the move instance is being passed many times, and I'm constructing many many Move class instances along the AI implementation. Thus, I'm afriad that it may have significant inpact of the performance.
To reduce the performance inpact, I thought about the following solution:
Instead of using instances of the Move class, I'll store my entire move data inside a long number (using bitwise operations), and then will extract the information as needed.
For instance:
- Player color will be from bit 1 - 2 (1 bit).
- Oirign position will be from bit 2 - 12 (10 bits).
and so on.
See this example:
public long GenerateMove(PlayerColor color, int origin, int destination) {
return ((int)color) | (origin << 10) | (destination << 20);
}
public PlayerColor GetColor(long move) {
return move & 0x1;
}
public int GetOrigin(long move) {
return (int)((move >> 10) & 0x3f);
}
public int GetDestination(long move) {
return (int)((move >> 20) & 0x3f);
}
Using this method, I can pass along the AI just long numbers, instead of class instances.
However, I got some wonders: Put aside the added complexity to the program, class instances are being passed in C# by reference (i.e. by sending a pointer to that address). So does my alternative method even make sense? The case is even worse, since I'm using long numbers here (64bis), but the pointer address may be represented as an integer (32bits) - so it may even have worest performance than my current implementation.
What is your opinion about this alternative method?

There are a couple of things to say here:
Are you actually having performance problems (and are you sure memory usage is the reason)? Memory allocation for new instances is very cheap in .net and normally, you will not notice garbage collection. So you might be barking up the wrong tree here.
When you pass an instance of a reference type, you are just passing a reference; when you store a reference type (e.g. in an array), you will just store the reference. So unless you create a lot of distinct instances or copy the data into new instances, passing the reference does not increase heap size. So passing references might be the most efficient way to go.
If you create a lot of copies and discard them quickly and you are afraid of memory impact (again, do you face actual problems?), you can create value types (structinstead of class). But you have to be aware of the value type semantics (you are always working on copies).
You can not rely on a reference being 32 bit. On a 64 bit system, it will be 64 bit.
I would strongly advise against storing the data in an integer variable. It makes your code less maintainable and that is in most of the cases not worth the performance tradeoff. Unless you are in severe trouble, don't do it.
If you don't want to give up on the idea of using a numeric value, use at least a struct, that is composed of two System.Collections.Specialized.BitVector32 instances. This is a built in .NET type that will do the mask and shift operations for you. In that struct you can also encapsulate accessing the values in properties, so you can keep this rather unusual way of storing your values away from your other code.
UPDATE:
I would recommend you use a profiler to see where the performance problems are. It is almost impossible (and defenitely not a good use of your time) to use guesswork for performance optimization. Once you see the profiler results, you'll probably be surprised about the reason of your problems. I would bet that memory usage or memory allocation is not it.
In case you actually come to the conclusion that memory consumption of your Move instances is the reason and using small value types would solve the problem (I'd be surprised), don't use an Int64, use a custom struct (as described in 6.) like the following, that will be the same size as an Int64:
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.StructLayout( System.Runtime.InteropServices.LayoutKind.Sequential, Pack = 4 )]
public struct Move {
private static readonly BitVector32.Section SEC_COLOR = BitVector32.CreateSection( 1 );
private static readonly BitVector32.Section SEC_ORIGIN = BitVector32.CreateSection( 63, SEC_COLOR );
private static readonly BitVector32.Section SEC_DESTINATION = BitVector32.CreateSection( 63, SEC_ORIGIN );
private BitVector32 low;
private BitVector32 high;
public PlayerColor Color {
get {
return (PlayerColor)low[ SEC_COLOR ];
}
set {
low[ SEC_COLOR ] = (int)value;
}
}
public int Origin {
get {
return low[ SEC_ORIGIN ];
}
set {
low[ SEC_ORIGIN ] = value;
}
}
public int Destination {
get {
return low[ SEC_DESTINATION ];
}
set {
low[ SEC_DESTINATION ] = value;
}
}
}
But be aware that you are now using a value type, so you have to use it accordingly. That means assignments create copies of the original (i.e. changing the destination value will leave the source unchanged), using ref parameters if you want to persist changes made by subroutines and avoid boxing at any cost to prevent even worse performance (some operations can mean boxing even though you won't immediately notice, e.g. passing the struct that implements an interface as an argument of the interface type). Using structs (just as well as using Int64) will only be worth it when you create a lot of temporary values, which you quickly throw away. And then you'll still need to confirm with a profile that your performance is actually improved.

Is this a good fit for a class or struct (speed is more important than memory)?

Normally, I'd never have to ask myself whether a given scenario is better suited to a struct or class and frankly I did not ask that question before going the class way in this case. Now that I'm optimizing, things are getting a little confusing.
I'm writing a number crunching application that deals with extremely large numbers containing millions of Base10 digits. The numbers are (x,y) coordinates in 2D space. The main algorithm is pretty sequential and has no more than 200 instances of the class Cell (listed below) in memory at any given time. Each instance of the class takes up approximately 5MB of memory resulting in no more than 1GB in total peak memory for the application. The finished product will run on a 16 core machine with 20GB of RAM and no other applications hogging up the resources.
Here is the class:
// Inheritance is convenient but not absolutely necessary here.
public sealed class Cell: CellBase
{
// Will contain numbers with millions of digits (512KB on average).
public System.Numerics.BigInteger X = 0;
// Will contain numbers with millions of digits (512KB on average).
public System.Numerics.BigInteger Y = 0;
public double XLogD = 0D;
// Size of the array is roughly Base2Log(this.X).
public byte [] XBytes = null;
public double YLogD = 0D;
// Size of the array is roughly Base2Log(this.Y).
public byte [] YBytes = null;
// Tons of other properties for scientific calculations on X and Y.
// NOTE: 90% of the other fields and properties are structs (similar to BigInteger).
public Cell (System.Numerics.BigInteger x, System.Numerics.BigInteger y)
{
this.X = x;
this.XLogD = System.Numerics.BigInteger.Log(x, 2);
this.XBytes = x.ToByteArray();
this.Y = y;
this.YLogD = System.Numerics.BigInteger.Log(y, 2);
this.YBytes = y.ToByteArray();
}
}
I chose to use a class instead of a struct simply because it 'felt' more natural. The number of fields, methods and memory all instinctively pointed to classes as opposed to structs. I further justified that by considering how much overhead temporary assignment calls would have since the underlying primary objects are instances of BigInteger, which itself is a struct.
The question is, have I chosen wisely here considering speed efficiency is the ultimate goal in this case?
Here's a bit about the algorithm in case it helps. In each iteration:
Sorting performed once on all 200 instances. 20% of execution time.
Calculating neighboring (x,y) coordinates of interest. 60% of execution time.
Parallel/Threading overhead for point 2 above. 10% of execution time.
Branching overhead. 10% of execution time.
The most expensive function: BigInteger.ToByteArray() (implementation).

This would be better fit as a class, for many reasons, including
It doesn't logically represent a single value
It's larger than 16 bytes
It's mutable
For details, see Choosing Between Classes and Structures.
In addition, I'd also suggest that it's better suited to a class given:
It contains reference types (arrays). Structures containing classes are rarely a good design idea.
This is especially true, though, given what you're doing. If you were to use a struct, sorting would require copies of the entire struct, instead of just copies of the references. Method calls (unless passed by ref) would incur a huge overhead, as well, since you'd be copying all of the data.
Parallelization of items in a collection could also likely incur huge overhead, as the bounds checking on any array of the struct (ie: if it's kept in a List<Cell> or similar) would cause bad false sharing, since all access into the list would access the memory at the start of the list.
I would recommend leaving this as a class, and, in addition, I would suggest trying to move the fields into properties, and making the class as immutable as possible. This will help keep your design clean, and less likely to be problematic when multithreading.

It's hard to tell based on what you've written (we don't know how often you end up copying a value of type Cell for example) but I would strongly expect a class to be the correct approach here.
The number of methods in the class is irrelevant, but if it has lots of fields you need to consider the impact of copying all those fields any time you pass a value to another method (etc).
Fundamentally it doesn't feel like a value type to start with - but I understand that if performance is particularly important, the philosophical aspects may not be as interesting to you.
So yes, I think you've made the right decision, and I see no reason to believe anything else at the moment - but of course if you can easily change the decision and test it as a struct, that would be better than guesswork. Performance is remarkably difficult to predict accurately.

Since your class does contain arrays which do consume most of your memory and you have only 200 Cell Instances around the memory consumption of the class itself is not an issue. You were right that a class felt more natural it is indeed the right choice. My guess would be that the comparison of XByte[] and XYBytes[] does limit your sorting time. It all depends how big your arrays are and how you do perform the comparison.

Let's start ignoring the performance matters, and work up to them.
Structs are ValueTypes and ValueTypes are value-types. Integer's and DateTime's are value-types and a good comparison. There's no sense in talking about how one 1 is or isn't the same as 1, or how one 2010-02-03T12:45:23.321Z is or isn't the same as another 2010-02-03T12:45:23.321Z. They may have different significance in different uses, but that 1 == 1 and 1 != 2 and that 2010-02-03T12:45:23.321Z == 2010-02-03T12:45:23.321Z and 2010-02-03T12:45:23.321Z != 2931-03-05T09:21:29.43Z is inherent to the nature of integers and date-times and that's what makes them value-types.
That's the purest way of thinking about this. If it matches the above it's a value-type, if it doesn't, it's a reference type. Nothing else comes into it.
Extension 1: If an X can have an X then it has to be a reference type. Whether this logically follows from what was said above is debatable, but whatever you think on the matter you can't have a struct that has an instance of another one of itself as a member (directly or indirectly) in practice, so that's that.
Extension 2: Some say that the difficulties that come from mutable structs come from the above, and some do not. Again though, whatever you think on the matter, there are practical difficulties. A mutable struct can be useful in a few cases, but they cause enough confusion that they should be restricted to private cases as an optimisation rather than public cases as a matter of course.
Here comes the performance bit...
Value types and reference types have different characteristics in different cases that affects the speed, the memory use, and the way that memory use affects garbage collection in several ways giving each different pros and cons as far as performance goes. Just how much attention we pay to that, depends on how much we need to get down to that level. It's worth saying right now that the ways in which they differ tends to balance to a win if you follow the above rule on deciding between struct and class so if we start thinking about this beyond that, we're at least bordering on optimisation territory.
Optimisation level 1.
If a value type instance will contain more than 16bytes per instance, it should probably be made a reference. This is sometimes even stated as a "natural" difference rather than one of optimisation. Strictly there's nothing in "value type" that entails "16 or fewer bytes" but it does tend to balance out that way.
Moving away from the simplistic "16 bytes" rule, the smaller it is the faster it is to copy, and contrary-wise, so bending it for a 20-byte instance is of less impact than bending it for a 200-byte instance.
Will you need to box and unbox a lot? Since the introduction of generics we've been able to avoid a lot of cases where we would box and unbox with 1.0 and 1.1, so this isn't as big a deal as once, but if you do it will hurt performance.
Optimisation level 2.
The fact that value types can be place on a stack, placed directly in an array (rather than references to them) and be direct fields of a struct or class (again, rather than references to them) can make access to them and to their fields faster.
If you're going to create an array of them and if all-zero values are a useful starting point for you, you get that immediately, where as with reference types you get an array of nulls. This can make structs faster.
Edit: Something that extends from the above, if you are going to be iterating through arrays rapidly, then as well as the direct-access giving a boost over following the reference, you'll be loading a couple of instances into CPU cache at a time (64 bytes worth on current x86-32 or x86-64/amd, 128 bytes worth on ia-64). It has to be a pretty tight loop to matter, but there are cases where it does.
Pretty much most "I went for struct rather than class for performance" comes down to either the first point, or the first in combination with the second.
Optimisation level 3.
If you will have cases where some of the values you are concerned with are duplicates of each other, and they are large in size, then with immutable instances (or mutable instances you simply never mutate once you start doing what follows), you can deliberately alias different references so that you save a lot of memory because your e.g. 20 duplicate objects of 2kiB in size are actually the same object, hence saving 26kiB in that case. It can also make comparisons faster because the cases where you can short-cut on identity are more frequent. This can only be done with reference types.
Optimisation level 4.
Structs that have arrays do though alias the contained array and could internally use the above technique, balancing out that point, though it's somewhat more involved.
Optimisation level X.
It doesn't matter how much thinking about these pros and cons comes to a particular answer, if actually measuring the results comes to a different ones. Since there are both pros and cons, it's always possible to get this wrong.
In thinking about 1 through 4, along with the differences between value and reference types aside from such optimisation concerns, I think you should go for a class.
In thinking about level X I wouldn't be amazed if your actually testing it proved me wrong. The best bit is, if it is arduous to change from class to struct (you make heavy use of aliasing or the possibility of null value), then you can be pretty confident that doing so is a lose. If it isn't arduous, then you can just do so and measure! I'd strongly suggest measuring a test that involves a real run over doing something 10,000 times - who cares if you can do a given operation 10,000 times in a few less seconds if you do a different operation 20 times more often in the real thing?

A struct can only contain an array-type field safely if either (1) the state of the struct depends upon the identity of the array rather than its contents (as is the case with ArraySegment), or (2) no reference to the array will ever be held by anything that might try to mutate it (typically, this means that the array field will be private, and the struct itself will create the array and perform all modifications that will ever be done to it, before storing a reference in the field).
I advocate using structs much more commonly than other people here, but the fact that your data storage thingie would have two array-type fields would seem a strong argument against using a struct.

Best practice way to store collection

I am porting a C# application to C++, and I have the following class (where Box is a struct, and the BoxStore will be a global, long living object in the app):
public class BoxStore
{
private List<Box> boxes;
...
public List<Box> GetBoxes()
{
return this.boxes;
}
}
I'm planning to store the boxes collection in a std::vector in C++. There are multiple ways to define the collection:
std::vector<Box> boxes;
shared_ptr<std::vector<Box>> boxes;
std::vector<Box>& boxes;
(*std::vector<Box> boxes;)
What is - if there is any - best way to go? I guess the last option (to store a raw pointer to the collection) is the worst solution without any benefit (hence the parantheses)).
And what is the best approach to port the GetBoxes method? Of course this depends on the way of storing the collection. I can see multiple approaches here too:
(std::vector<Box> GetBoxes();)
std::shared_ptr<std::vector<Box>> GetBoxes();
*std::vector<Box> GetBoxes();
std::vector<Box>& GetBoxes();
The first solution seems incorrect, because the vector would get copied upon return, thus the caller couldn't modify the original collection.
However the other three approaches seem equally good to me. The BoxStore instance is long living, and is not getting destroyed while the app is running, so the caller won't have ownership over the collection. Does this mean, that returning a shared_ptr is semantically incorrect? (It is always the BoxStore object, who frees the collection.)
And is there a significant difference between returning a raw pointer or a reference?

This could be the possible one you are looking for.
BoxStore really owns the objects. So, no pointers etc are needed.
I'm assuming that the individual box objects and the list won't outlive the Store.
If you have that requirement, then you might need to consider using pointers.
Regarding the return by reference is not really good design since it violates the encapsulation. So, if you didn't have the constraint to allow the clients to modify the list, I would have provided a copy of the list to out.
#include <list>
class Box
{
...
};
class BoxStore
{
private :
std::list<Box> boxes;
public :
std::list<Box>& GetBoxes()
{
return boxes;
}
}

How do these people avoid creating any garbage?

Here's an interesting article that I found on the web.
It talks about how this firm is able to parse a huge amount of financial data in a managed environment, essentially by object reuse and avoiding immutables such as string. They then go on and show that their program doesn't do any GC during the continuous operation phase.
This is pretty impressive, and I'd like to know if anyone else here has some more detailed guidelines as to how to do this. For one, I'm wondering how the heck you can avoid using string, when blatently some of the data inside the messages are strings, and whatever client application is looking at the messages will want to be passed those strings? Also, what do you allocate in the startup phase? How will you know it's enough? Is it simple a matter of claiming a big chunk of memory and keeping a reference to it so that GC doesn't kick in? What about whatever client application is using the messages? Does it also need to be written according to these stringent standards?
Also, would I need a special tool to look at the memory? I've been using SciTech memory profiler thus far.

I found the paper you linked to rather deficient:
It assumes, and wants you to assume, that garbage collection is the ultimate latency killer. They have not explained why they think so, nor have they explained in what way their system is not basically a custom-made garbage collector in disguise.
It talks about the amount of memory cleaned up in garbage collection, which is irrelevant: the time taken to garbage collect depends more on the number of objects, irrespective of their size.
The table of “results” at the bottom provides no comparison to a system that uses .NET’s garbage collector.
Of course, this doesn’t mean they’re lying and it’s nothing to do with garbage collection, but it basically means that the paper is just trying to sound impressive without actually divulging anything useful that you could use to build your own.

One thing to note from the beginning is where they say "Conventional wisdom has been developing low latency messaging technology required the use of unmanaged C++ or assembly language". In particular, they are talking about a sort of case where people would often dismiss a .NET (or Java) solution out of hand. For that matter, a relatively naïve C++ solution probably wouldn't make the grade either.
Another thing to consider here, is that they have essentially haven't so much gotten rid of the GC as replaced it - there's code there managing object lifetime, but it's their own code.
There are several different ways one could do this instead. Here's one. Say I need to create and destroy several Foo objects as my application runs. Foo creation is parameterised by an int, so the normal code would be:
public class Foo
{
private readonly int _bar;
Foo(int bar)
{
_bar = bar;
}
/* other code that makes this class actually interesting. */
}
public class UsesFoo
{
public void FooUsedHere(int param)
{
Foo baz = new Foo(param)
//Do something here
//baz falls out of scope and is liable to GC colleciton
}
}
A much different approach is:
public class Foo
{
private static readonly Foo[] FOO_STORE = new Foo[MOST_POSSIBLY_NEEDED];
private static Foo FREE;
static Foo()
{
Foo last = FOO_STORE[MOST_POSSIBLY_NEEDED -1] = new Foo();
int idx = MOST_POSSIBLY_NEEDED - 1;
while(idx != 0)
{
Foo newFoo = FOO_STORE[--idx] = new Foo();
newFoo._next = FOO_STORE[idx + 1];
}
FREE = last._next = FOO_STORE[0];
}
private Foo _next;
//Note _bar is no longer readonly. We lose the advantages
//as a cost of reusing objects. Even if Foo acts immutable
//it isn't really.
private int _bar;
public static Foo GetFoo(int bar)
{
Foo ret = FREE;
FREE = ret._next;
return ret;
}
public void Release()
{
_next = FREE;
FREE = this;
}
/* other code that makes this class actually interesting. */
}
public class UsesFoo
{
public void FooUsedHere(int param)
{
Foo baz = Foo.GetFoo(param)
//Do something here
baz.Release();
}
}
Further complication can be added if you are multithreaded (though for really high performance in a non-interactive environment, you may want to have either one thread, or separate stores of Foo classes per thread), and if you cannot predict MOST_POSSIBLY_NEEDED in advance (the simplest is to create new Foo() as needed, but not release them for GC which can be easily done in the above code by creating a new Foo if FREE._next is null).
If we allow for unsafe code we can have even greater advantages in having Foo a struct (and hence the array holding a contiguous area of stack memory), _next being a pointer to Foo, and GetFoo() returning a pointer.
Whether this is what these people are actually doing, I of course cannot say, but the above does prevent GC from activating. This will only be faster in very high throughput conditions, if not then letting GC do its stuff is probably better (GC really does help you, despite 90% of questions about it treating it as a Big Bad).
There are other approaches that similarly avoid GC. In C++ the new and delete operators can be overridden, which allows for the default creation and destruction behaviour to change, and discussions of how and why one might do so might interest you.
A practical take-away from this is when objects either hold resources other than memory that are expensive (e.g. connections to databases) or "learn" as they continue to be used (e.g. XmlNameTables). In this case pooling objects is useful (ADO.NET connections do so behind the scenes by default). In this case though a simple Queue is the way to go, as the extra overhead in terms of memory doesn't matter. You can also abandon objects on lock contention (you're looking to gain performance, and lock contention will hurt it more than abandoning the object), which I doubt would work in their case.

From what I understood, the article doesn't say they don't use strings. They don't use immutable strings. The problem with immutable strings is that when you're doing parsing, most of the strings generated are just throw-away strings.
I'm guessing they're using some sort of pre-allocation combined with free lists of mutable strings.

I worked for a while with a CEP product called StreamBase. One of their engineers told me that they were migrating their C++ code to Java because they were getting better performance, fewer bugs and better portability on the JVM by pretty much avoiding GC altogether. I imagine the arguments apply to the CLR as well.
It seemed counter-intuitive, but their product was blazingly fast.
Here's some information from their site:
StreamBase avoids garbage collection in two ways: Not using objects, and only using the minimum set of objects we need.
First, we avoid using objects by using Java primitive types (Boolean, byte, int, double, and long) to represent our data for processing. Each StreamBase data type is represented by one or more primitive type. By only manipulating the primitive types, we can store data efficiently in stack or array allocated regions of memory. We can then use techniques like parallel arrays or method calling to pass data around efficiently.
Second, when we do use objects, we are careful about their creation and destruction. We tend to pool objects rather than releasing them for garbage collection. We try to manage object lifecycle such that objects are either caught by the garbage collector in the young generation, or kept around forever.
Finally, we test this internally using a benchmarking harness that measures per-tuple garbage collection. In order to achieve our high speeds, we try to eliminate all per-tuple garbage collection, generally with good success.

In 99% of the time you will be wasting your bosses money when you try to achieve this. The article describes a absolute extreme scenario where they need the last drop of performance. As you can read in the article, there are great parts of the .NET framework that can't be used when trying to be GC-free. Some of the most basic parts of the BCL use memory allocations (or 'produce garbage', as the paper calls it). You will need to find a way around those methods. And even when you need absolute blazingly fast applications, you'd better first try to build an application/architecture that can scale out (use multiple machines), before trying to walk the no-GC route. The sole reason for them to use the no-GC route is they need an absolute low latency. IMO, when you need absolute speed, but don't care about the absolute minimum response time, it will be hard to justify a no-GC architecture. Besides this, if you try to build a GC-free client application (such as Windows Forms or WPF App); forget it, those presentation frameworks create new objects constantly.
But if you really want this, it is actually quite simple. Here is a simple how to:
Find out which parts of the .NET API can't be used (you can write a tool that analyzes the .NET assemblies using an introspection engine).
Write a program that verifies the code you or your developers write to ensure they don't allocate directly or use 'forbidden' .NET methods, using the safe list created in the previous point (FxCop is a great tool for this).
Create object pools that you initialize at startup time. The rest of the program can reuse existing object so that they won't have to do any new ops.
If you need to manipulate strings, use byte arrays for this and store byte arrays in a pool (WCF uses this technique also). You will have to create an API that allows manipulating those byte arrays.
And last but not least, profile, profile, profile.
Good luck