Slow performance compared to C++, ideas?
Andrei Alexandrescu
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Mon Jun 3 09:59:47 PDT 2013
On 6/3/13 12:25 PM, Manu wrote:
> You won't break every single method, they already went through that
> recently when override was made a requirement.
> It will only break the base declarations, which are far less numerous.
That's what I meant.
> How can you justify the change to 'override' with a position like that?
> We have already discussed that we know PRECISELY the magnitude of
> breakage that will occur.
> It is: magnitude_of_breakage_from_override /
> total_number_of_derived_classes. A much smaller number than the breakage
> which was gladly accepted recently.
Well it's kinda too much relativism that the number of breakages is
considered small because it's smaller than another number.
> And the matter is far from trivial.
It is trivial. To paraphrase a classic: "I'm not taking away your
ability to make everything final, you can type 'final:' as much as you
like."
> In fact, if you think this is
> trivial, then how did the override change ever get accepted? That is
> most certainly trivial by contrast, and far more catastrophic in terms
> of breakage.
That's a completely different issue, so this part of the argument can be
considered destroyed.
Andrei
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list