Re: Pb with use of redefined "=" operator

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Robert A Duff wrote:

> Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> writes:
> 
> > Why would anyone complain about using a component that always works?
> 
> Because it's too slow?
> 
> Maybe it's no big deal for your stack example -- maybe the stack needs
> 100 words, and the tag field makes it 101.  But suppose the abstraction
> were "point-in-a-plane" or "complex", where the thing needs two words of
> useful data -- in that case, adding a tag field is a huge space
> inefficiency.  And don't tell me memory is cheap -- it takes time to
> initialize it, and it can wreck your caching behavior, which costs time,
> and time is *not* cheap.

I agree that certain "small" data types are best not tagged, but I would
think that a collection in general is not such a type. Indeed, we have to
use tagged types for collections if we want the ability to treat them as 
values and define our own ":=". I'm definitely struggling with some of the 
same issues that Matt is struggling with, in my own attempts to create a 
flexible, usable, and most of all, efficient, data structure library. I
haven't found any totally satisfactory approaches.

I really liked the way that Sather divided its types into immutable (stack
allocated) value types and mutable (heap allocated) reference types, and
how it also used $ for the polymorphic abstract types. Too bad its a dead 
language. In any case, its lack of a proper module system was really a 
pain.

> > If using a language feature to make an abstraction work is "gratuitous,"
> > or seems like a "trick," then that is a telling observation of the
> > language itself!
> 
> Yes, the language has a flaw.

Unfortunately, it has many, many flaws. The real pity is that I don't
think that there are really any better languages out there in the same
language design space. Maybe one day someone will design a successor to 
Ada unencumbered by backwards compatibility (*).  

-- Brian

(*) No, Eiffel isn't even close, IMO.