develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2013

Re: PL_sv_objcount

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
February 28, 2013 21:27
Subject:
Re: PL_sv_objcount
Message ID:
20130228212728.GF3729@plum.flirble.org
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 04:14:10PM -0500, bulk88 wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Pretty much *any* real world code of any form is going to end up with
> > PL_sv_objcount non-zero at destruction time.
> 
> What is real world code? LAMP alone?

As I illustrated earlier, loading either Config or Exporter will cause
PL_sv_objcount to be non-zero at destruction time. They won't be the only
modules that end up doing this.

Almost any substantive code is going to load at least one of them.

LAMP or not.

> > You are arguing in favour of optimising about 30 *micro*-seconds from the
> > runtime of *trivial* one-liners (ie don't use Exporter or Config)
> 
> Yes. Not everyone uses persistent processes. What will replace these 30 
> micro-seconds? Nothing? If they are trivial, why not deprecate and 
> remove -e? It would make maintenance much easier to have newlines in code.
> 
> > 
> > In the long game, maintainability and better algorithms win.
> 
> *Who* will do the better algorithms? Maintainability is subjective. Lock 
> the git, put a page welcoming existing Perl users to Rakudo and be done 
> with it if it is unmaintainable.
>
> > 
> > Code reviewing micro-optimisations takes time from everything else.
> 
> Removing optimizations to make life easy is a great plan.

Your sarcasm is neither helpful nor welcome.

If you have nothing constructive to say, please say nothing.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About