7 ms·
> In fact, native functions often have to cover complicated edge cases from the ECMAScript specification, which put them at a performance disadvantage. What. I
by cristiantincu 12y ago
> In fact, native functions often have to cover complicated edge cases from the ECMAScript specification, which put them at a performance disadvantage.
What. Is. This. I don’t even.
- sp332 12y agoSo if you simplify the implementation, it gets faster but more fragile. Why is that confusing?
- pestaa 12y agoIf you simplify the specification, a proper implementation gets faster with no downside. Why can't we build software on simpler platforms with better implementations?
- sp332 12y agoDoing something complex on a simple platform requires complex code. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_tarpit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_tarpit Having a more complex platform can make things a lot easier for the programmer.
- pestaa 12y agoSimplicity never meant easy. Doing something complex on a simple platform may as well use simple constructs and benefit from no edge cases. For example, Haskell provides only a handful of constructs but allows the developer to build sophisticated systems. Though I agree complex platforms are not necessarily complicated.
- ulisesrmzroche 12y agoYou programmed before? Implementations dont get simpler just because you wish them to.
- pestaa 12y agoWhy the ad hominem? I can make the implementation simpler if the underlying specification is simpler. If a language is full of edge cases, it was not designed carefully. If there exists a significantly faster implementation in a significantly slower language that covers 99% of the specification, I'd look for opportunities to simplify.