SIMD support...

Artur Skawina art.08.09 at gmail.com
Sat Jan 7 09:04:51 PST 2012


On 01/07/12 17:10, Don wrote:
> On 07.01.2012 04:18, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Also consider how the hard-coding of associative arrays in
>> an awkward interface inside the runtime has stifled efficient
>> implementations, progress, and innovation in that area. Still a lot of
>> work needed there, too, to essentially undo a bad decision.
> 
> Sorry Andrei, I have to disagree with that in the strongest possible terms. I would have mentioned AAs as a very strong argument in the opposite direction!
> 
> Moving AAs from a built-in to a library type has been an unmitigated disaster from the implementation side. And it has so far brought us *nothing* in return. Not "hardly anything", but *NOTHING*. I don't even have any idea of what good could possibly come from it. Note that you CANNOT have multiple implementations on a given platform, or you'll get linker errors! So I think there is more pain to come from it.
> It seems to have been motivated by religious reasons and nothing more.
> Why should anyone believe the same argument again?
> 

Reminded me of this: "static immutable string[string] aa = [ "a": "b" ];" isn't currently possible (AA literals are non-const expressions); could this work w/o compiler support?..

artur


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list