Why Ruby?

Jacob Carlborg doob at me.com
Sun Dec 19 12:17:50 PST 2010


On 2010-12-19 19:29, Michel Fortin wrote:
> 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.

That would only be the case if the function takes the delegate as a 
template parameter?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list