retard wrote:
Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:28 +0000, BCS wrote:
Hello Leandro,
Again *optimization*. How many times should I say that I agree that D
is better than almost every dynamic languages if you need speed?
I'm not arguing on that point. What I'm arguing is that (at least for
me) the primary advantages of metaprogramming are static checks (for
non-perf benefits) and performance. Both of these must be done at
compile time. Runtime metaprogramming just seems pointless *to me.*
Both the language used to represent D metaprograms and D are suboptimal
for many kinds of DSLs. A dynamic language can provide better control
over these issues without resorting to manual string parsing. If the DSL
is closer to the problem domain, it can have a great effect on program
correctness.
For instance, you could define natural language like statements in your
DSL with functional composition. In D you basically have to write all
metaprograms inside strings and parse them with CTFE functions. In e.g.
lisp or io the DSL is on the same abstraction level as the main language.
These are of course slow, but in some environments you need to be able to
provide non-developers an intuitive interface for writing business logic.
Even the runtime metaprogramming system can provide optimizations after
the DSL has been processed.
I understand your logic. It's very simple. You use metaprogramming to
improve performance.
Static dimensional analysis doesn't improve performance, and I recall he
mentioned that.
Andrei
