Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-17 22:26:21

"Aleksey Gurtovoy" <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > My opinion is that unlike runtime collections, type collections
tend not
> to
> > grow to huge lengths. Often, types are ultimately created by
people, so
> it's
> > not like you have tons of them.
> Some of the state machines we generate using the compile-time FSM
> have transition tables with ~50 elements. That's large enough to
> appreciate compilation speed and any possibility to improve it.

I understand. My conjecture is that for this order of magnitude (and
even for one order of magnitude up), a compiler should be fast enough.
After all, my ML, Haskell and Scheme programs were uniformly blazingly
fast when working with such input size :o).

I wish a compiler implementer could chime in with a qualified opinion.

By and large, my belief is that new, worthwhile programming idioms
ought to influence compiler implementations. The opposite (new idioms
that specifically address idiosyncrasies and inefficiencies in
compiler implementations) is often the case, though.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at