3 ms·
> I didn't introduce the claim of leaky abstractions But you used the term as well - I disagree with both you and the OP on if this case should be called "leak
by valenterry 4y ago
> I didn't introduce the claim of leaky abstractions
But you used the term as well - I disagree with both you and the OP on if this case should be called "leaky abstraction".
> The context is that the 'new' abstraction is claimed to be leaky by not providing particular performance guarantees
That's not a useful definition of "leaky abstraction" by any means. Who decides if "particular performance guarantees" have been provided or not?
- ghusbands 4y agoI agree that it's not a good term. Also, you're confusing your posters - "abstraction now leaks" was introduced by someone opposing the optimization (dymk), not the OP (londons_explore, who used "insufficient abstraction"). And when I used it I intentionally paraquoted as "claimed abstraction leakage", due to the leaky terminology.
- valenterry 4y agoFair enough. :)