[phobos] Slicer

[David Simcha]

IMHO (I'm 99.999% sure Andrei will disagree with me) if you really want to
exploit every possible micro-optimization you shouldn't be using generic
code in the first place.  The ability to write generic code that's as
efficient as the equivalent hand-written code is a major achievement of
templates.  However, if you know your data and use cases inside out and care
about getting every last bit of performance, you won't write equivalent
hand-written code, you'll write super micro-optimized hand-written code
tailored to the data and use case.  There are almost always opportunities
for ad-hoc micro-optimization, though whether they are worth implementing in
any given case is a different question.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisprog at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Friday, August 13, 2010 10:32:11 David Simcha wrote:
> > I would agree if we were talking about big-O efficiency, or even a large
> > constant overhead, but IMHO avoiding Slicer is a micro-optimization, not
> a
> > macro-optimization.  Therefore, by default it should "just work" even if
> > it's slightly inefficient and intervention should be required only if the
> > programmer decides it needs to be optimized.
>
> Well, if it's deemed that it's not a big difference, then I don't think
> that I
> really have a problem with it. It bugs me a bit still, but that doesn't
> mean
> that it's a bad idea. We definitely need std.algorithm to generally be
> efficient,
> but we also need it to be useable. So, if the cost in efficiency is small
> enough,
> and there really are a lot of ranges that have this problem, then Slicer
> probably should be used.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/attachments/20100813/b06ad834/attachment.html>