- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:44:40 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 --- Comment #38 from Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> --- (In reply to Ryan Sleevi from comment #37) Thanks, this is enlightening. As an overall comment, I think your starting premise is wrong. ES programmers don't necessarily think about this sort of processing in the same way that a C/C++ programmer would. In particular, they don't generally think about this local memory management/buffer reuse like this. In this case I suspect that incrementally accumulating into a common buffer wouldn't even occur to many ES programmer. They would probably just do concatenations along the way and expect intermediate results that are no longer needed to get garbage collected. Regarding your approach, I suspect the extra copying (and related memory management overhead) you are proposing on calls into your subsystem, would just about balance out savings you get from using the accumulating buffer. Working with immutable independent buffers seems conceptually much simpler and more along the lines of what a good ES programmer would expect. This sort of ES based thinking really should be a factor in your API designs. Don't assume that the ES developer will approach problems just like a C++ developer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 00:44:42 UTC