4 ms·

In Virgil every first-class function is a represented as a fat pointer, i.e. two words[1], for both bound and unbound delegates. It's simple to understand, the

by titzer 3y ago

In Virgil every first-class function is a represented as a fat pointer, i.e. two words[1], for both bound and unbound delegates. It's simple to understand, the syntax is clean, and it always works the way you expect it to. It doesn't create garbage and basically means you use two registers instead of one. The unbound version even does a proper virtual dispatch for you. I understand C++'s intention, but it's doing no one any favors here and makes it really hard to build proper abstractions. Pointers to members are clunky, hard to use, and easy to screw up. AFAIU it's possible that a pointer to a member to be a single simple function pointer, but not guaranteed, and you shouldn't rely on it. It seems like a very bad tradeoff. std::function is considerably more heavyweight (and according to this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfunctionvoidint-type https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfu... might be arbitrarily large); i.e. it's slow in practice and people avoid it. [1] For programs less than 4GB combined code and heap, the two pointers can be packed into a single 64-bit word (though the compiler doesn't do this currently).

Kranar 3y ago
>The unbound version even does a proper virtual dispatch for you--in C++ you can break class invariants by skipping a virtual dispatch by using a member pointer. This is not true, the C++ version does the proper virtual dispatch. >I understand C++'s intention, but it's doing no one any favors here and makes it really hard to build proper abstractions. std::function is a perfectly fine abstraction built on-top of the lower level primitives if you don't care about always paying a performance penalty. As someone who writes performance sensitive code, I do care so I try to avoid that penalty. >std::function is considerably more heavyweight (and according to this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfu https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfu... might be arbitrarily large); Of course std::function can allocate arbitrarily large amounts of memory, so can Virgil's implementation. The sizeof(std::function) is always fixed, but because it can capture arbitrarily functions which themselves can carry arbitrarily large state, then so too must std::function also have the potential to allocate arbitrarily large amounts of memory. In C++ people avoid std::function because as you said it's slow, and people tend to not use C++ for programs that can be slow, this goes back to the principle of not having to pay for what you don't use. In other languages you don't get that choice, you basically are required to pay the worst case cost even if you never use it.

by titzer 3y ago

Kranar 3y ago

>The unbound version even does a proper virtual dispatch for you--in C++ you can break class invariants by skipping a virtual dispatch by using a member pointer. This is not true, the C++ version does the proper virtual dispatch. >I understand C++'s intention, but it's doing no one any favors here and makes it really hard to build proper abstractions. std::function is a perfectly fine abstraction built on-top of the lower level primitives if you don't care about always paying a performance penalty. As someone who writes performance sensitive code, I do care so I try to avoid that penalty. >std::function is considerably more heavyweight (and according to this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfu https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13503511/sizeof-of-stdfu... might be arbitrarily large); Of course std::function can allocate arbitrarily large amounts of memory, so can Virgil's implementation. The sizeof(std::function) is always fixed, but because it can capture arbitrarily functions which themselves can carry arbitrarily large state, then so too must std::function also have the potential to allocate arbitrarily large amounts of memory. In C++ people avoid std::function because as you said it's slow, and people tend to not use C++ for programs that can be slow, this goes back to the principle of not having to pay for what you don't use. In other languages you don't get that choice, you basically are required to pay the worst case cost even if you never use it.