Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

Meta: it would make my year if we could get one of these compiler discussions happening once a week on a public forum like this, both for better basic understanding about why some of these concepts are not trivial, and for better visibility into what else is going on in the process of continuing

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

I'm ok with restricting them to @JsFunction java8 lambdas. That's likely to be the common path for web oriented code for event handling. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:47 AM, 'Roberto Lublinerman' via GWT Contributors wrote: > That is why I am

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

That is why I am saying that it will be easy to do for JsFunctions but due to Java semantics (regular) lambdas are just not plain functions and thus I don't think there is much to gain there. I don't think there is much to gain on the regular lambdas. There are 2 different ways we can handle them

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

The point is that for JsFunctions you DON'T actually need to do the makeLambda(). JsFunction was designed to be able to pass JS functions to JAVA so there is a code path for that and we can exploit it for JsFunction lambdas. So x -> 42 + capture will be represented in the JAva AST as class X {

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

I understand, but the trampolines cause bloat, and if you're suggesting treating all non-JsFunction Java8 lambdas as JsFunctions as far as code-gen is concerned, then you would not be able to make the following code work: foo(Callable x) { bar(x); } foo(Runnable x) { bar(x); } bar(Object x) { if

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

That seems similar to my proposal, only you're doing it in GenJsAST. You'll still need to the makeLambda() trick to allow it to work as a regular obejct as well, with hashCode()/equals()/getClass() properties, as well as castMap installed. But if you use static method delegation, the size won't be

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

The scheme I had in mind does not modify much the Java AST representation but is more in the lowering to the JsAST, basically it boils down the the following:. 1. You create the lambda body as a static method of the class where it appears. This static method has all captures as parameters (thiis

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

Seems to me this'll be tricky to pull off. The GWT compiler has no notion of captured scope. If you want to create a class type that represents a lambda, but which doesn't actually get output as a class, you'd have to change many many parts of the compiler. I think perhaps the best thing you

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

We accept patches :) On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Paul Stockley wrote: > Given that it will be realistically a couple of years before most large > projects could migrate to J2CL, it would be really nice to have a more > optimal code generation for lambda's, especially

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

Given that it will be realistically a couple of years before most large projects could migrate to J2CL, it would be really nice to have a more optimal code generation for lambda's, especially for JsFunction. When 2.8 gets released, I think people will really start taking advantage of existing

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

It should not be hard to make JsFunction lambdas more terse, but there are no plans for GWT 2.x. On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Paul Stockley wrote: > Are there plans to optimize this in the GWT2.x version in the future? > > On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:57:00 AM

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

Are there plans to optimize this in the GWT2.x version in the future? On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:57:00 AM UTC-4, Roberto Lublinerman wrote: > > Yes, right now all lambdas are implemented as anonymous inner classes, > even the ones implementing JsFunction interfaces. > > On Fri, Apr 15,

Re: [gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

Yes, right now all lambdas are implemented as anonymous inner classes, even the ones implementing JsFunction interfaces. On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Paul Stockley wrote: > Am I right in saying that java 8 lambda's under the covers is implemented > as an anonymous

[gwt-contrib] Lambda overhead

Am I right in saying that java 8 lambda's under the covers is implemented as an anonymous inner class? Is this also true for SAM interfaces annotated with JsFunction annotated interfaces? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To