4 ms·

As referenced in the paper itself, section 6.1.

by tacos 11y ago

igouy 11y ago
For those who have not looked at the referenced paper, the last section is -- "6. Conclusions" "…Reticulated programs perform far worse than their unchecked Python implementation…" p10 "Design and Evaluation of Gradual Typing for Python"
- sitkack 11y ago
  And I would argue that _use-site checking_ is the easiest and obviously the slowest method to attain the stated goal. Python is already slow, this is just going to make things silly. Using the same inference methods as Shedskin [0] along with type annotations, functional tests and property based testing can get both correctness and performance in a gradual layered manner. This paper doesn't prove that gradual typing is broken, it shows that _use-site checking_ happens to be slow for the version of Python that they used (PyPy could very well elide the checks). [0] Shedskin Thesis http://mark.dufour.googlepages.com/shedskin.pdf http://mark.dufour.googlepages.com/shedskin.pdf Iterative Flow Analysis by Plevyak http://plevyak.com/ifa-submit.pdf http://plevyak.com/ifa-submit.pdf Agesen's Cartesian Product http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.663&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88....
  - igouy 11y ago
    My point was simply that there is no section 6.1 in that paper, and what is in the paper does not support `tacos` claim ;-)
    - tacos 11y ago
      I'm referring to section 6.1 of the original paper which very much does exist (PDF page 11). Not that the Ruby vs Python detour hasn't been amusing, but my core argument can and should have been better stated as: debug builds are slower than release builds and people still use them. Therefore this technology is not dead.
      - igouy 11y ago
        I see, by "in the paper itself" and "the original paper" you mean "Is Sound Gradual Typing Dead? [pdf] (neu.edu)" not the paper `sitkack` referenced. Same problem in section 6.1 -- " “Reticulated programs perform far worse than their unchecked Python implementations” -- and nothing to support your claim that "Reticulated Python is still an order of magnitude faster than Ruby".

As referenced in the paper itself, section 6.1.

by tacos 11y ago

As referenced in the paper itself, section 6.1.

igouy 11y ago

For those who have not looked at the referenced paper, the last section is -- "6. Conclusions" "…Reticulated programs perform far worse than their unchecked Python implementation…" p10 "Design and Evaluation of Gradual Typing for Python"

sitkack 11y ago
And I would argue that _use-site checking_ is the easiest and obviously the slowest method to attain the stated goal. Python is already slow, this is just going to make things silly. Using the same inference methods as Shedskin [0] along with type annotations, functional tests and property based testing can get both correctness and performance in a gradual layered manner. This paper doesn't prove that gradual typing is broken, it shows that _use-site checking_ happens to be slow for the version of Python that they used (PyPy could very well elide the checks). [0] Shedskin Thesis http://mark.dufour.googlepages.com/shedskin.pdf http://mark.dufour.googlepages.com/shedskin.pdf Iterative Flow Analysis by Plevyak http://plevyak.com/ifa-submit.pdf http://plevyak.com/ifa-submit.pdf Agesen's Cartesian Product http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88.663&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.88....
- igouy 11y ago
  My point was simply that there is no section 6.1 in that paper, and what is in the paper does not support `tacos` claim ;-)
  - tacos 11y ago
    I'm referring to section 6.1 of the original paper which very much does exist (PDF page 11). Not that the Ruby vs Python detour hasn't been amusing, but my core argument can and should have been better stated as: debug builds are slower than release builds and people still use them. Therefore this technology is not dead.
    - igouy 11y ago
      I see, by "in the paper itself" and "the original paper" you mean "Is Sound Gradual Typing Dead? [pdf] (neu.edu)" not the paper `sitkack` referenced. Same problem in section 6.1 -- " “Reticulated programs perform far worse than their unchecked Python implementations” -- and nothing to support your claim that "Reticulated Python is still an order of magnitude faster than Ruby".