From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ef86287aa487b07a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Pb with use of redefined "=" operator Date: 1998/11/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 410174340 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <363F62F3.3FF7@club-internet.fr> <3640B520.D7BEEE72@elca-matrix.ch> <3641D551.CCA4379C@elca-matrix.ch> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-11-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Heaney 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. > We are not philosophers debating morality -- we are systems builders. > Our goal is to build correct systems, by whatever means necessary. > > 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. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.