Why Ruby?

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-12-19 11:11:03 -0500, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> said:

> On 2010-12-19 16:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 12/19/10 6:26 AM, retard wrote:
>>> In case you didn't see, two additional problems were also listed earlier
>>> in this thread:
>>> 
>>> - template bloat (different strings generate new instances of the sort
>>> in the sorting example)
>> 
>> This can be solved by using a canonicalizer before passing to unaryFun.
>> I considered doing that, but delayed implementing it to when this would
>> actually become a problem.
> 
> I can clearly see that you haven't used an Objective-C/D bridge. The 
> reason (or at least one of the reasons) for which Michel Fortin (as 
> well as I) gave up the Objective-C/D bridge and started to modify DMD 
> is template bloat. I'm not saying that using template strings as 
> lambdas is going to bloat your executable/library as much as the bridge 
> does but I always think twice before adding a template to my code.

Has anyone checked which of delegates or strings cause more template bloat?

I'd suspect using strings will result in less bloat because the same 
string will often be reused (making the compiler reuse the same 
template instance) whereas the compiler will likely use the mangled 
name of the delegate when instantiating the template... and no two 
delegate literals have the same mangled name.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/