3 ms·
>I don't get why people object to performance work on languages not intended for performance. It's simple, really. They're concerned about the trade-offs.
by omginternets 6y ago
>I don't get why people object to performance work on languages not intended for performance.
It's simple, really. They're concerned about the trade-offs.
- chrisseaton 6y agoIf it's in a fork that you can pretend doesn't exist if you don't want it... what is the trade-off?
- omginternets 6y agoA fragmented ecosystem, incompatibilities, etc. And more importantly, your original question isn't asking about forks, specifically. It was asking why someone might oppose performance work.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> incompatibilities, etc But it's compatible. It's a drop-in replacement.
- omginternets 6y agoSerious question: do you have experience with “drop in replacements” for reference implementations? They’re rarely 100% compatible. Especially when the reference implementation isn’t formally specified. Moreover, you continue to cherry pick, neglecting the other arguments you’ve been presented. It sounds like you’ve already made up your mind about this.
- chrisseaton 6y agoOther arguments are ‘it’s not worth it’ or ‘it’s not likely to succeed’ but nobody is making you do the work!
- omginternets 6y agoHmm no, they’re really not. I’ll leave you to reread the tread.