On Friday, 28 March 2014 at 15:49:06 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 14:15:10 -0000, Chris <[email protected]>
wrote:
Earlier Walter wrote:
"I don't like being in the position of when I need high
performance code, I have
to implement my own ranges & algorithms, or telling customers
they need to do so."
I don't think there is a one size fits all. What if customers
ask for maximum security? In any language, if I want high
performance, I have to be prepared to walk on thin ice. If I
want things to be safe and / or generic, I have to accept
additonal checks (= perfomance penalties). I don't think that
a language can solve the fundamental problems concerning
programming / mathematical logic with all the contradictory
demands involved. It can give us the tools to cope with those
problems, but not solve them out of the box.
You can build safety on top of performance. You cannot do the
opposite. Meaning, one could wrap an unsafe/fast range with a
safe/slower one.
R
But should unsafe+fast be the default or rather an option for
cases when you really need it?
