Related
How do you manage reusable state retrieved from a network in a fp language during runtime?
I know of atoms in Clojure, but nothing of other languages. Is there a way to manage network data within state using pure fp principles? If there's no mutable state, the service would have to make a network request each time it needed a piece of data for a function [which needed that data as an input]. This seems very expensive.
I know of atoms in Clojure, but nothing of other languages
All FP languages will most likely have a construct similar to Clojure's atom, for example Haskell has TVar, MVar, TMVar which are similar managed safe mutable containers like Atom and Ref are in Clojure. This is because state is often unavoidable, and memory is not infinite, so at some point you need mutation, but what FP languages do is isolate that mutation and manage it so you limit its impact on program complexity and safety.
Now probably what you want to hear as you're trying to keep things purely functional and I feel your question is... but aren't these mutable state containers non functional?
Well the answer is to keep to a pure FP style, you need to model things as a data-flow and pass state along. You maintain state because it's constantly passed along to the next thing running or waiting. Sometimes that's more ackward than good though, and lots of frameworks in FP languages won't do that, they'll use a managed mutable container like an atom.
So here's the gist:
waitForNextCommand(state[])
-- command, state -->
if state missing token
-- state[] -->
getTokenFromA
-- state[token] -->
callB
-- state[token] -->
waitForNextCommand(state[token]) ;; recursive
else if state has token
-- state[token] -->
callB
-- state[token] -->
waitForNextCommand(state[token]) ;; recursive
Now there is no global state, and no mutable containers, only functions of immutable input to output calling each other in a data-flow which is recursive, yet you won't call getTokenFromA if you already have a token.
That said, waitForNextCommand won't be pure, and that's normal, at the boundary something has to be impure as it interacts with the user or external world.
I am trying to understand all the low-level stuff Compilers / Interpreters / the Kernel do for you (because I'm yet another person who thinks they could design a language that's better than most others)
One of the many things that sparked my curiosity is Async-Await.
I've checked the under-the-hood implementation for a couple languages, including C# (the compiler generates the state machine from sugar code) and Rust (where the state machine has to be implemented manually from the Future trait), and they all implement Async-Await using state machines.
I've not found anything useful by googling ("async copy stack frame" and variations) or in the "Similar questions" section.
To me, this method seems rather complicated and overhead-heavy;
Could you not implement Async-Await by simply memcopying the stack frames of async calls to/from heap?
I'm aware that it is architecturally impossible for some languages (I thank the CLR can't do it, so C# can't either).
Am I missing something that makes this logically impossible? I would expect less complicated code and a performance boost from doing it that way, am I mistaken? I suppose when you have a deep stack hierarchy after a async call (eg. a recursive async function) the amount of data you would have to memcopy is rather large, but there are probably ways to work around that.
If this is possible, then why isn't it done anywhere?
Yes, an alternative to converting code into state machines is copying stacks around. This is the way that the go language does it now, and the way that Java will do it when Project Loom is released.
It's not an easy thing to do for real-world languages.
It doesn't work for C and C++, for example, because those languages let you make pointers to things on the stack. Those pointers can be used by other threads, so you can't move the stack away, and even if you could, you would have to copy it back into exactly the same place.
For the same reason, it doesn't work when your program calls out to the OS or native code and gets called back in the same thread, because there's a portion of the stack you don't control. In Java, project Loom's 'virtual threads' will not release the thread as long as there's native code on the stack.
Even in situations where you can move the stack, it requires dedicated support in the runtime environment. The stack can't just be copied into a byte array. It has to be copied off in a representation that allows the garbage collector to recognize all the pointers in it. If C# were to adopt this technique, for example, it would require significant extensions to the common language runtime, whereas implementing state machines can be accomplished entirely within the C# compiler.
I would first like to begin by saying that this answer is only meant to serve as a starting point to go in the actual direction of your exploration. This includes various pointers and building up on the work of various other authors
I've checked the under-the-hood implementation for a couple languages, including C# (the compiler generates the state machine from sugar code) and Rust (where the state machine has to be implemented manually from the Future trait), and they all implement Async-Await using state machines
You understood correctly that the Async/Await implementation for C# and Rust use state machines. Let us understand now as to why are those implementations chosen.
To put the general structure of stack frames in very simple terms, whatever we put inside a stack frame are temporary allocations which are not going to outlive the method which resulted in the addition of that stack frame (including, but not limited to local variables). It also contains the information of the continuation, ie. the address of the code that needs to be executed next (in other words, the control has to return to), within the context of the recently called method. If this is a case of synchronous execution, the methods are executed one after the other. In other words, the caller method is suspended until the called method finishes execution. This, from a stack perspective fits in intuitively. If we are done with the execution of a called method, the control is returned to the caller and the stack frame can be popped off. It is also cheap and efficient from a perspective of the hardware that is running this code as well (hardware is optimised for programming with stacks).
In the case of asynchronous code, the continuation of a method might have to trigger several other methods that might get called from within the continuation of callers. Take a look at this answer, where Eric Lippert outlines the entirety of how the stack works for an asynchronous flow. The problem with asynchronous flow is that, the method calls do not exactly form a stack and trying to handle them like pure stacks may get extremely complicated. As Eric says in the answer, that is why C# uses graph of heap-allocated tasks and delegates that represents a workflow.
However, if you consider languages like Go, the asynchrony is handled in a different way altogether. We have something called Goroutines and here is no need for await statements in Go. Each of these Goroutines are started on their own threads that are lightweight (each of them have their own stacks, which defaults to 8KB in size) and the synchronization between each of them is achieved through communication through channels. These lightweight threads are capable of waiting asynchronously for any read operation to be performed on the channel and suspend themselves. The earlier implementation in Go is done using the SplitStacks technique. This implementation had its own problems as listed out here and replaced by Contigious Stacks. The article also talks about the newer implementation.
One important thing to note here is that it is not just the complexity involved in handling the continuation between the tasks that contribute to the approach chosen to implement Async/Await, there are other factors like Garbage Collection that play a role. GC process should be as performant as possible. If we move stacks around, GC becomes inefficient because accessing an object then would require thread synchronization.
Could you not implement Async-Await by simply memcopying the stack frames of async calls to/from heap?
In short, you can. As this answer states here, Chicken Scheme uses a something similar to what you are exploring. It begins by allocating everything on the stack and move the stack values to heap when it becomes too large for the GC activities (Chicken Scheme uses Generational GC). However, there are certain caveats with this kind of implementation. Take a look at this FAQ of Chicken Scheme. There is also lot of academic research in this area (linked in the answer referred to in the beginning of the paragraph, which I shall summarise under further readings) that you may want to look at.
Further Reading
Continuation Passing Style
call-with-current-continuation
The classic SICP book
This answer (contains few links to academic research in this area)
TLDR
The decision of which approach to be taken is subjective to factors that affect the overall usability and performance of the language. State Machines are not the only way to implement the Async/Await functionality as done in C# and Rust. Few languages like Go implement a Contigious Stack approach coordinated over channels for asynchronous operations. Chicken Scheme allocates everything on the stack and moves the recent stack value to heap in case it becomes heavy for its GC algorithm's performance. Moving stacks around has its own set of implications that affect garbage collection negatively. Going through the research done in this space will help you understand the advancements and rationale behind each of the approaches. At the same time, you should also give a thought to how you are planning on designing/implementing the other parts of your language for it be anywhere close to be usable in terms of performance and overall usability.
PS: Given the length of this answer, will be happy to correct any inconsistencies that may have crept in.
I have been looking into various strategies for doing this myseøf, because I naturally thi k I can design a language better than anybody else - same as you. I just want to emphasize that when I say better, I actually mean better as in tastes better for my liking, and not objectively better.
I have come to a few different approaches, and to summarize: It really depends on many other design choices you have made in the language.
It is all about compromises; each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
It feels like the compiler design community are still very focused on garbage collection and minimizing memory waste, and perhaps there is room for some innovation for more lazy and less purist language designers given the vast resources available to modern computers?
How about not having a call stack at all?
It is possible to implement a language without using a call stack.
Pass continuations. The function currently running is responsible for keeping and resuming the state of the caller. Async/await and generators come naturally.
Preallocated static memory addresses for all local variables in all declared functions in the entire program. This approach causes other problems, of course.
If this is your design, then asymc functions seem trivial
Tree shaped stack
With a tree shaped stack, you can keep all stack frames until the function is completely done. It does not matter if you allow progress on any ancestor stack frame, as long as you let the async frame live on until it is no longer needed.
Linear stack
How about serializing the function state? It seems like a variant of continuations.
Independent stack frames on the heap
Simply treat invocations like you treat other pointers to any value on the heap.
All of the above are trivialized approaches, but one thing they have in common related to your question:
Just find a way to store any locals needed to resume the function. And don't forget to store the program counter in the stack frame as well.
Does Spirit provide any capabilities for working with non-blocking IO?
To provide a more concrete example: I'd like to use Boost's Spirit parsing framework to parse data coming in from a network socket that's been placed in non-blocking mode. If the data is not completely available, I'd like to be able to use that thread to perform other work instead of blocking.
The trivial answer is to simply read all the data before invoking Spirit, but potentially gigabytes of data would need to be received and parsed from the socket.
It seems like that in order to support non-blocking I/O while parsing, Spirit would need some ability to partially parse the data and be able to pause and save its parse state when no more data is available. Additionally, it would need to be able to resume parsing from the saved parse state when data does become available. Or maybe I'm making this too complicated?
TODO Will post a example for a simple single-threaded 'event-based' parsing model. This is largely trivial but might just be what you need.
For anything less trivial, please heed to following considerations/hints/tips:
How would you be consuming the result? You wouldn't have the synthesized attributes any earlier anyway, or are you intending to use semantic actions on the fly?
That doesn't usually work well due to backtracking. The caveats could be worked around by careful and judicious use of qi::hold, qi::locals and putting semantic actions with side-effects only at stations that will never be backtracked. In other words:
this is bound to be very errorprone
this naturally applies to a limited set of grammars only (those grammars with rich contextual information will not lend themselves well for this treatment).
Now, everything can be forced, of course, but in general, experienced programmers should have learned to avoid swimming upstream.
Now, if you still want to do this:
You should be able to get spirit library thread safe / reentrant by defining BOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE and linking to libboost_thread. Note this makes the gobals used by Spirit threadsafe (at the cost of fine grained locking) but not your parsers: you can't share your own parsers/rules/sub grammars/expressions across threads. In fact, you can only share you own (Phoenix/Fusion) functors iff they are threadsafe, and any other extensions defined outside the core Spirit library should be audited for thread-safety.
If you manage the above, I think by far the best approach would seem to
use boost::spirit::istream_iterator (or, for binary/raw character streams I'd prefer to define a similar boost::spirit::istreambuf_iterator using the boost::spirit::multi_pass<> template class) to consume the input. Note that depending on your grammar, quite a bit of memory could be used for buffering and the performance is suboptimal
run the parser on it's own thread (or logical thread, e.g. Boost Asio 'strands' or its famous 'stackless coprocedures')
use coarse-grained semantic actions like shown above to pass messages to another logical thread that does the actual processing.
Some more loose pointers:
you can easily 'fuse' some functions to handle lazy evaluation of your semantic action handlers using BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_FUNCTION and friends; This reduces the amount of cruft you have to write to get simple things working like normal C++ overload resolution in semantic actions - especially when you're not using C++0X and BOOST_RESULT_OF_USE_DECLTYPE
Because you will want to avoid semantic actions with side-effects, you should probably look at Inherited Attributes and qi::locals<> to coordinate state across rules in 'pure functional fashion'.
I've recently been learning about functional programming (specifically Haskell, but I've gone through tutorials on Lisp and Erlang as well). While I found the concepts very enlightening, I still don't see the practical side of the "no side effects" concept. What are the practical advantages of it? I'm trying to think in the functional mindset, but there are some situations that just seem overly complex without the ability to save state in an easy way (I don't consider Haskell's monads 'easy').
Is it worth continuing to learn Haskell (or another purely functional language) in-depth? Is functional or stateless programming actually more productive than procedural? Is it likely that I will continue to use Haskell or another functional language later, or should I learn it only for the understanding?
I care less about performance than productivity. So I'm mainly asking if I will be more productive in a functional language than a procedural/object-oriented/whatever.
Read Functional Programming in a Nutshell.
There are lots of advantages to stateless programming, not least of which is dramatically multithreaded and concurrent code. To put it bluntly, mutable state is enemy of multithreaded code. If values are immutable by default, programmers don't need to worry about one thread mutating the value of shared state between two threads, so it eliminates a whole class of multithreading bugs related to race conditions. Since there are no race conditions, there's no reason to use locks either, so immutability eliminates another whole class of bugs related to deadlocks as well.
That's the big reason why functional programming matters, and probably the best one for jumping on the functional programming train. There are also lots of other benefits, including simplified debugging (i.e. functions are pure and do not mutate state in other parts of an application), more terse and expressive code, less boilerplate code compared to languages which are heavily dependent on design patterns, and the compiler can more aggressively optimize your code.
The more pieces of your program are stateless, the more ways there are to put pieces together without having anything break. The power of the stateless paradigm lies not in statelessness (or purity) per se, but the ability it gives you to write powerful, reusable functions and combine them.
You can find a good tutorial with lots of examples in John Hughes's paper Why Functional Programming Matters (PDF).
You will be gobs more productive, especially if you pick a functional language that also has algebraic data types and pattern matching (Caml, SML, Haskell).
Many of the other answers have focused on the performance (parallelism) side of functional programming, which I believe is very important. However, you did specifically ask about productivity, as in, can you program the same thing faster in a functional paradigm than in an imperative paradigm.
I actually find (from personal experience) that programming in F# matches the way I think better, and so it's easier. I think that's the biggest difference. I've programmed in both F# and C#, and there's a lot less "fighting the language" in F#, which I love. You don't have to think about the details in F#. Here's a few examples of what I've found I really enjoy.
For example, even though F# is statically typed (all types are resolved at compile time), the type inference figures out what types you have, so you don't have to say it. And if it can't figure it out, it automatically makes your function/class/whatever generic. So you never have to write any generic whatever, it's all automatic. I find that means I'm spending more time thinking about the problem and less how to implement it. In fact, whenever I come back to C#, I find I really miss this type inference, you never realise how distracting it is until you don't need to do it anymore.
Also in F#, instead of writing loops, you call functions. It's a subtle change, but significant, because you don't have to think about the loop construct anymore. For example, here's a piece of code which would go through and match something (I can't remember what, it's from a project Euler puzzle):
let matchingFactors =
factors
|> Seq.filter (fun x -> largestPalindrome % x = 0)
|> Seq.map (fun x -> (x, largestPalindrome / x))
I realise that doing a filter then a map (that's a conversion of each element) in C# would be quite simple, but you have to think at a lower level. Particularly, you'd have to write the loop itself, and have your own explicit if statement, and those kinds of things. Since learning F#, I've realised I've found it easier to code in the functional way, where if you want to filter, you write "filter", and if you want to map, you write "map", instead of implementing each of the details.
I also love the |> operator, which I think separates F# from ocaml, and possibly other functional languages. It's the pipe operator, it lets you "pipe" the output of one expression into the input of another expression. It makes the code follow how I think more. Like in the code snippet above, that's saying, "take the factors sequence, filter it, then map it." It's a very high level of thinking, which you don't get in an imperative programming language because you're so busy writing the loop and if statements. It's the one thing I miss the most whenever I go into another language.
So just in general, even though I can program in both C# and F#, I find it easier to use F# because you can think at a higher level. I would argue that because the smaller details are removed from functional programming (in F# at least), that I am more productive.
Edit: I saw in one of the comments that you asked for an example of "state" in a functional programming language. F# can be written imperatively, so here's a direct example of how you can have mutable state in F#:
let mutable x = 5
for i in 1..10 do
x <- x + i
Consider all the difficult bugs you've spent a long time debugging.
Now, how many of those bugs were due to "unintended interactions" between two separate components of a program? (Nearly all threading bugs have this form: races involving writing shared data, deadlocks, ... Additionally, it is common to find libraries that have some unexpected effect on global state, or read/write the registry/environment, etc.) I would posit that at least 1 in 3 'hard bugs' fall into this category.
Now if you switch to stateless/immutable/pure programming, all those bugs go away. You are presented with some new challenges instead (e.g. when you do want different modules to interact with the environment), but in a language like Haskell, those interactions get explicitly reified into the type system, which means you can just look at the type of a function and reason about the type of interactions it can have with the rest of the program.
That's the big win from 'immutability' IMO. In an ideal world, we'd all design terrific APIs and even when things were mutable, effects would be local and well-documented and 'unexpected' interactions would be kept to a minimum. In the real world, there are lots of APIs that interact with global state in myriad ways, and these are the source of the most pernicious bugs. Aspiring to statelessness is aspiring to be rid of unintended/implicit/behind-the-scenes interactions among components.
One advantage of stateless functions is that they permit precalculation or caching of the function's return values. Even some C compilers allow you to explicitly mark functions as stateless to improve their optimisability. As many others have noted, stateless functions are much easier to parallelise.
But efficiency is not the only concern. A pure function is easier to test and debug since anything that affects it is explicitly stated. And when programming in a functional language, one gets in the habit of making as few functions "dirty" (with I/O, etc.) as possible. Separating out the stateful stuff this way is a good way to design programs, even in not-so-functional languages.
Functional languages can take a while to "get", and it's difficult to explain to someone who hasn't gone through that process. But most people who persist long enough finally realise that the fuss is worth it, even if they don't end up using functional languages much.
Without state, it is very easy to automatically parallelize your code (as CPUs are made with more and more cores this is very important).
Stateless web applications are essential when you start having higher traffic.
There could be plenty of user data that you don't want to store on the client side for security reasons for example. In this case you need to store it server-side. You could use the web applications default session but if you have more than one instance of the application you will need to make sure that each user is always directed to the same instance.
Load balancers often have the ability to have 'sticky sessions' where the load balancer some how knows which server to send the users request to. This is not ideal though, for example it means every time you restart your web application, all connected users will lose their session.
A better approach is to store the session behind the web servers in some sort of data store, these days there are loads of great nosql products available for this (redis, mongo, elasticsearch, memcached). This way the web servers are stateless but you still have state server-side and the availability of this state can be managed by choosing the right datastore setup. These data stores usually have great redundancy so it should almost always be possible to make changes to your web application and even the data store without impacting the users.
My understanding is that FP also has a huge impact on testing. Not having a mutable state will often force you to supply more data to a function than you would have to for a class. There's tradeoffs, but think about how easy it would be to test a function that is "incrementNumberByN" rather than a "Counter" class.
Object
describe("counter", () => {
it("should increment the count by one when 'increment' invoked without
argument", () => {
const counter = new Counter(0)
counter.increment()
expect(counter.count).toBe(1)
})
it("should increment the count by n when 'increment' invoked with
argument", () => {
const counter = new Counter(0)
counter.increment(2)
expect(counter.count).toBe(2)
})
})
functional
describe("incrementNumberBy(startingNumber, increment)", () => {
it("should increment by 1 if n not supplied"){
expect(incrementNumberBy(0)).toBe(1)
}
it("should increment by 1 if n = 1 supplied"){
expect(countBy(0, 1)).toBe(1)
}
})
Since the function has no state and the data going in is more explicit, there are fewer things to focus on when you are trying to figure out why a test might be failing. On the tests for the counter we had to do
const counter = new Counter(0)
counter.increment()
expect(counter.count).toBe(1)
Both of the first two lines contribute to the value of counter.count. In a simple example like this 1 vs 2 lines of potentially problematic code isn't a big deal, but when you deal with a more complex object you might be adding a ton of complexity to your testing as well.
In contrast, when you write a project in a functional language, it nudges you towards keeping fancy algorithms dependent on the data flowing in and out of a particular function, rather than being dependent on the state of your system.
Another way of looking at it would be illustrating the mindset for testing a system in each paradigm.
For Functional Programming: Make sure function A works for given inputs, you make sure function B works with given inputs, make sure C works with given inputs.
For OOP: Make sure Object A's method works given an input argument of X after doing Y and Z to the state of the object. Make sure Object B's method works given an input argument of X after doing W and Y to the state of the object.
The advantages of stateless programming coincide with those goto-free programming, only more so.
Though many descriptions of functional programming emphasize the lack of mutation, the lack of mutation also goes hand in hand with the lack of unconditional control transfers, such as loops. In functional programming languages, recursion, in particularly tail recursion, replaces looping. Recursion eliminates both the unconditional control construct and the mutation of variables in the same stroke. The recursive call binds argument values to parameters, rather than assigning values.
To understand why this is advantageous, rather than turning to functional programming literature, we can consult the 1968 paper by Dijkstra, "Go To Statement Considered Harmful":
"The unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress."
Dijkstra's observations, however still apply to structured programs which avoid go to, because statements like while, if and whatnot are just window dressing on go to! Without using go to, we can still find it impossible to find the coordinates in which to describe the process progress. Dijkstra neglected to observe that bridled go to still has all the same issues.
What this means is that at any given point in the execution of the program, it is not clear how we got there. When we run into a bug, we have to use backwards reasoning: how did we end up in this state? How did we branch into this point of the code? Often it is hard to follow: the trail goes back a few steps and then runs cold due to a vastness of possibilities.
Functional programming gives us the absolute coordinates. We can rely on analytical tools like mathematical induction to understand how the program arrived into a certain situation.
For example, to convince ourselves that a recursive function is correct, we can just verify its base cases, and then understand and check its inductive hypothesis.
If the logic is written as a loop with mutating variables, we need a more complicated set of tools: breaking down the logic into steps with pre- and post-conditions, which we rewrite in terms mathematics that refers to the prior and current values of variables and such. Yes, if the program uses only certain control structures, avoiding go to, then the analysis is somewhat easier. The tools are tailored to the structures: we have a recipe for how we analyze the correctness of an if, while, and other structures.
However, by contrast, in a functional program there is no prior value of any variable to reason about; that whole class of problem has gone away.
Haskel and Prolog are good examples of languages which may be implemented as stateless programming languages. But unfortunately they are not so far. Both Prolog and Haskel have imperative implementations currently. See some SMT's, seem closer to stateless coding.
This is why you are having hard time seeing any benefits from these programing languages. Due to imperative implementations we have no performance and stability benefits. So the lack of stateless languages infrastructure is the main reason you feel no any stateless programming language due to its absence.
These are some benefits of pure stateless:
Task description is the program (compact code)
Stability due to absense of state-dependant bugs (the most of bugs)
Cachable results (a set of inputs always cause same set of outputs)
Distributable computations
Rebaseable to quantum computations
Thin code for multiple overlapping clauses
Allows differentiable programming optimizations
Consistently applying code changes (adding logic breaks nothing written)
Optimized combinatorics (no need to bruteforce enumerations)
Stateless coding is about concentrating on relations between data which then used for computing by deducing it. Basically this is the next level of programming abstraction. It is much closer to native language then any imperative programming languages because it allow describing relations instead of state change sequences.
I recently read a discussion regarding whether managed languages are slower (or faster) than native languages (specifically C# vs C++). One person that contributed to the discussion said that the JIT compilers of managed languages would be able to make optimizations regarding references that simply isn't possible in languages that use pointers.
What I'd like to know is what kind of optimizations that are possible on references and not on pointers?
Note that the discussion was about execution speed, not memory usage.
In C++ there are two advantages of references related to optimization aspects:
A reference is constant (refers to the same variable for its whole lifetime)
Because of this it is easier for the compiler to infer which names refer to the same underlying variables - thus creating optimization opportunities. There is no guarantee that the compiler will do better with references, but it might...
A reference is assumed to refer to something (there is no null reference)
A reference that "refers to nothing" (equivalent to the NULL pointer) can be created, but this is not as easy as creating a NULL pointer. Because of this the check of the reference for NULL can be omitted.
However, none of these advantages carry over directly to managed languages, so I don't see the relevance of that in the context of your discussion topic.
There are some benefits of JIT compilation mentioned in Wikipedia:
JIT code generally offers far better performance than interpreters. In addition, it can in some or many cases offer better performance than static compilation, as many optimizations are only feasible at run-time:
The compilation can be optimized to the targeted CPU and the operating system model where the application runs. For example JIT can choose SSE2 CPU instructions when it detects that the CPU supports them. With a static compiler one must write two versions of the code, possibly using inline assembly.
The system is able to collect statistics about how the program is actually running in the environment it is in, and it can rearrange and recompile for optimum performance. However, some static compilers can also take profile information as input.
The system can do global code optimizations (e.g. inlining of library functions) without losing the advantages of dynamic linking and without the overheads inherent to static compilers and linkers. Specifically, when doing global inline substitutions, a static compiler must insert run-time checks and ensure that a virtual call would occur if the actual class of the object overrides the inlined method.
Although this is possible with statically compiled garbage collected languages, a bytecode system can more easily rearrange memory for better cache utilization.
I can't think of something related directly to the use of references instead of pointers.
In general speak, references make it possible to refer to the same object from different places.
A 'Pointer' is the name of a mechanism to implement references. C++, Pascal, C... have pointers, C++ offers another mechanism (with slightly other use cases) called 'Reference', but essentially these are all implementations of the general referencing concept.
So there is no reason why references are by definition faster/slower than pointers.
The real difference is in using a JIT or a classic 'up front' compiler: the JIT can data take into account that aren't available for the up front compiler. It has nothing to do with the implementation of the concept 'reference'.
Other answers are right.
I would only add that any optimization won't make a hoot of difference unless it is in code where the program counter actually spends much time, like in tight loops that don't contain function calls (such as comparing strings).
An object reference in a managed framework is very different from a passed reference in C++. To understand what makes them special, imagine how the following scenario would be handled, at the machine level, without garbage-collected object references: Method "Foo" returns a string, which is stored into various collections and passed to different pieces of code. Once nothing needs the string any more, it should be possible to reclaim all memory used in storing it, but it's unclear what piece of code will be the last one to use the string.
In a non-GC system, every collection either needs to have its own copy of the string, or else needs to hold something containing a pointer to a shared object which holds the characters in the string. In the latter situation, the shared object needs to somehow know when the last pointer to it gets eliminated. There are a variety of ways this can be handled, but an essential common aspect of all of them is that shared objects need to be notified when pointers to them are copied or destroyed. Such notification requires work.
In a GC system by contrast, programs are decorated with metadata to say which registers or parts of a stack frame will be used at any given time to hold rooted object references. When a garbage collection cycle occurs, the garbage collector will have to parse this data, identify and preserve all live objects, and nuke everything else. At all other times, however, the processor can copy, replace, shuffle, or destroy references in any pattern or sequence it likes, without having to notify any of the objects involved. Note that when using pointer-use notifications in a multi-processor system, if different threads might copy or destroy references to the same object, synchronization code will be required to make the necessary notification thread-safe. By contrast, in a GC system, each processor may change reference variables at any time without having to synchronize its actions with any other processor.