On 7/26/2010 3:54 PM, joel falcou wrote:
> On 26/07/10 21:52, Eric Niebler wrote:
>> I confess I'm having a hard time seeing how the code posted in
>> Manjunath's original email could result in something that can be
>> introspected at runtime. Does it generate byte code? A runtime
>> polymorphic AST? And the JIT ... does it actually generate machine code
>> that then gets executed?
> Yeah screw introspection. It usually generates C code in a string then
> JIT it using w/e compiler is lying around.
Blech! You can't even do at runtime the sorts of things proto lets you
do at compile time.
>> Manjunath asked about why this technique is popular in industry. I don't
>> know; I've never heard about it before. Is it because it's easier then
>> programming with expression templates? Maybe had proto been available
>> earlier we'd see more ET-based DSELs today. That could just be my ego
>> talking. ;-
> Popular != pushed by Intel/Google.
> For me it's a bad solution. Hence why we look at CT-EDSL
I agree with you.
proto mailing list