On 12 April 2013 17:30, Vladimir Panteleev <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 07:22:42 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> I agree that spawning processes is a low-frequency operation, but it's a >> principle I'm trying to illustrate here. >> > > My point was that it is not that it's low-frequency, it's that the OS > process creation operation is so expensive, that a few memory allocations > will not make much of a difference in comparison. It's the same as > optimizing memory allocations in a program which is intrinsically disk- or > network-bound. Which OS are we talking about? What OS runs on an a Nintendo Wii? There's only 24mb of system memory in that machine, can we afford to allocate it frivolously? Will I avoid phobos as a policy? Yes. You can argue whatever you like. I've said my part, and I wherever it >> lands is not my call. >> > > Well, that's just not very constructive. > > Your complaint in valid in general, but I was pointing out that it is not > much so when specifically aimed at std.process. > I don't necessarily disagree with your point (although I don't agree either). Perhaps in the context of std.process it's not so important... but it's still an opportunity to set a precedent. Honestly, any new module could have appeared for approval at this particular moment and I would have made the same criticisms. Not necessarily picking on std.process in particular, I'm making a point about phobos, and what is considered acceptable.
