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. -- Eric Niebler BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ proto mailing list [email protected] http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/proto
