The ideal performance property we should ask of a high-level programming language and library is that it minimizes runtime and compile-time combinatorial complexity. We can accept constant overheads, but not higher-order overheads. This has many implications.
-
-
Next, we have to abandon manually synchronized memory concurrency. The combinatorial complexity here isn’t in performance but in programmer reasoning. We must either stay single-threaded or adopt purely functional programming or transactions.
Show this thread -
Finally, types should obey the mathematical properties expected of them. This means we must adopt mathematical integers, and if we support smaller integer storage formats, they are still just for storage. The byte 255 plus the byte 1 is not the byte 0, it’s the integer 256.
Show this thread -
If we support floating point, then the float 1.0f can’t be equal to integer 1, because there exist functions f where f(1.0f) is unequal to f(1), and a==b implies that for all f, f(a)==f(b). We must either say 1 is not equal to 1.0f, or that we aren’t allowed to compare them.
Show this thread -
Programming languages should be built on principles first and foremost, and avoid conveniences that violate principles. So much of what’s wrong today is the result of design by “wouldn’t it be nice if” without an earnest enumeration of guiding principles.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
only possible for immutable data.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.