Re: A question

• To: Info-dylan <info-dylan@harlequin.co.uk>
• Subject: Re: A question
• From: Jeff Dubrule <igor@pobox.com>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 23:01:03 -0500
• In-Reply-To: <387CD453.FD0726ED@miqs.com>
• References: <uaIe4.12653$Ce.289242@monger.newsread.com> <slrn87nhn2.1sj.neelk@brick.cswv.com> <387CD453.FD0726ED@miqs.com>
• Sender: owner-info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.6i

On Wed, Jan 12, 2000 at 02:30:04PM -0500, Scott Ribe wrote:
> > o Optional type annotations.
> > 
> >   When I'm writing quick prototype code, I can use dynamic typing,
> >   *and* I can add type annotations as needed to help document the
> >   code for myself. The additional speed that the compiler can extract
> >   from these annotations doesn't hurt either.
> 
> Now this is one where I got really baffled. Wrote a small database front
> end. Timed some operations. Went back and added pretty complete type
> annotations. (Complete for the repeatedly-called methods.) Got a 10%
> slowdown! I know there's a reason, but I don't know what it is.

Perhaps someone is adding extra typechecks somewhere that don't really
need to exist, instead of simply barreling on through, assuming that
everything is OK.

-igor

• A question
• From: "Stephen J. Guthrie" <steve.guthrie@mantissa.com>
• Re: A question
• From: neelk@brick.cswv.com (Neel Krishnaswami)
• Re: A question
• From: Scott Ribe <sribe@miqs.com>

• Prev: Re: MI: why?
• Next: Re: A question
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread