4 ms·

afaict you're making a distinction without a difference. afaict the Java etc programs could be re-written using null where you used nil — please explain why yo

by igouy 4y ago

afaict you're making a distinction without a difference. afaict the Java etc programs could be re-written using null where you used nil — please explain why you think that isn't correct.

morelisp 4y ago
You cannot call a method on null. Meaning: - Practically, Java would rather have to `return 3` when it detects a null child, effectively precomputing the penultimate level. - Semantically, Java could no longer distinguish between an absent child and a child with no children. Honestly, I have other variants that still don't use pooling but are less idiomatic; I find this exercise is begging the question hard. Any tools, however idiomatic, the language is giving you to reduce the effects of allocation seem to be off-limits for GCd languages. Whereas then e.g. C can just throw them all in a third-party pool library. And JIT languages are presumably allowed to fuse anything they want.
- igouy 4y ago
  I think you just said the Java etc programs could be re-written in a similar way? And we could add some more rules ("distinguish between an absent child and a child with no children") to reject those Java etc programs.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    > I think you just said the Java etc programs could be re-written in a similar way? I could rewrite the Go program to return 3 too, but I doubt you’d accept that. I can only conclude the benchmarks game is bad-faith bullshit at this point.
    - igouy 4y ago
      > … bad-faith bullshit… Kudos for actually bothering to "read the rules". None for ignoring what you read. The answer to "… but if my language lets me not allocate a node yet still use that node why should I?" is — Because allocate a node is the basis of comparison with the other programs! Change that for the Go programs and you change that for all the other programs; otherwise just special pleading for Go lang.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

by igouy 4y ago

afaict you're making a distinction without a difference. afaict the Java etc programs could be re-written using null where you used nil — please explain why you think that isn't correct.

morelisp 4y ago

You cannot call a method on null. Meaning: - Practically, Java would rather have to `return 3` when it detects a null child, effectively precomputing the penultimate level. - Semantically, Java could no longer distinguish between an absent child and a child with no children. Honestly, I have other variants that still don't use pooling but are less idiomatic; I find this exercise is begging the question hard. Any tools, however idiomatic, the language is giving you to reduce the effects of allocation seem to be off-limits for GCd languages. Whereas then e.g. C can just throw them all in a third-party pool library. And JIT languages are presumably allowed to fuse anything they want.

igouy 4y ago
I think you just said the Java etc programs could be re-written in a similar way? And we could add some more rules ("distinguish between an absent child and a child with no children") to reject those Java etc programs.
- morelisp 4y ago
  > I think you just said the Java etc programs could be re-written in a similar way? I could rewrite the Go program to return 3 too, but I doubt you’d accept that. I can only conclude the benchmarks game is bad-faith bullshit at this point.
  - igouy 4y ago
    > … bad-faith bullshit… Kudos for actually bothering to "read the rules". None for ignoring what you read. The answer to "… but if my language lets me not allocate a node yet still use that node why should I?" is — Because allocate a node is the basis of comparison with the other programs! Change that for the Go programs and you change that for all the other programs; otherwise just special pleading for Go lang.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]