On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 16:04:29 -0000, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
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?
Pass. My point was only that it needs to exist.
R
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
