3 ms·
> I think your question is a bit badly formulated since dependent types are a new, and shiny thing so you won't find any industry-standard implementation of it.
by jstimpfle 8y ago
> I think your question is a bit badly formulated since dependent types are a new, and shiny thing so you won't find any industry-standard implementation of it.
That's just another way of saying that my rebuttal was spot-on. I don't even need to ask if you have any code to show, because I know you haven't. Seriously consider http://wiki.c2.com/?SufficientlySmartCompiler http://wiki.c2.com/?SufficientlySmartCompiler
- gnulinux 8y agoI don't think we're (in particular) disagreeing, you're just being weirdly defensive (in this whole thread). The part we're agreeing is: there is no such "Sufficiently optimizing compiler" yet so a HL won't be as fast as LL by default. (this is very easy to check, C always wins in compiler metrics). What I'm trying to express is: (1) this is a trade-off by getting that slight performance increase you're making code uglier/less-readable (2) with current technologies you'll get acceptable performance even if you use generics (3) theoretically there is no reason why such sufficiently smart compiler cannot exist, we know enough to express sufficient amount of information in our programs.