develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2015

Re: OP_SIGNATURE

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
demerphq
Date:
March 4, 2015 07:32
Subject:
Re: OP_SIGNATURE
Message ID:
CANgJU+VdHezmJsYNL2mn2B=gvBsj3Fd4UeVK0X5x2eDa2fHfNQ@mail.gmail.com
On 4 Mar 2015 03:58, "David Golden" <xdg@xdg.me> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dave Mitchell <davem@iabyn.com> wrote:
>>
>> While I'm not always opposed in principle to things being pluggable, I
>> would attach a much higher priority to reducing the overhead of function
>> calls in perl as much as possible. This is an area where perl is
>> notoriously slow. If I had to choose just one or the other, I would
>> choose speed without a flicker of hesitation. After all, if people want a
>> infinitely pluggable parser, they know where to find perl6.
>
>
> +1
>
> I strongly believe that a faster Perl will have a much bigger impact on
the attractiveness and longevity of Perl 5 compared to greater pluggabiltiy.

Ditto. Perls slow sub calls are a huge issue. Anything that speeds them up
is going to have a knock on positive affect far in excess of signature
pluggability.

Yves

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