virtual-by-default rant

[deadalnix]

Le 18/03/2012 22:36, James Miller a écrit :
> On 19 March 2012 06:41, David Nadlinger<see at klickverbot.at>  wrote:
>> On Sunday, 18 March 2012 at 17:24:15 UTC, F i L wrote:
>>>
>>> […] I know LDC has a  LTO flag.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately it doesn't (-O4/-O5 are defunct), but working on seamless LTO
>> integration (and better optimization pass scheduling in general) would be
>> low-hanging fruit for anybody wanting to join LDC development.
>>
>> David
>
> I think that simply adding a `virtual` keyword that explicitly makes
> things virtual, even if they would otherwise be final, makes sense.
> Keep all the current semantics the same, relegate use of `virtual` to
> the 'advanced' section of D usage, everybody is happy.
>
> I'm with Manu in the case of "I don't trust the compiler". I'm
> perfectly happy for the compile to optimize short sections of code
> that I probably could optimize myself, but its not much of an issue,
> but I am reluctant to rely on the tooling to make decisions for me.
> For small programs, where it doesn't matter if it's half as fast as it
> could be, but that just means 2ms vs 1ms, I don't care. But in
> intensive programs, then I want to be sure that the compiler will do
> what I want.
>
> --
> James Miller

+1