On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 02:12:31PM -0700, chromatic wrote: > On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 12:33 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > > >Ah, shouldn't optimization be automatic? Much preferrable to provide > >opt-out optimizations instead of opt-in optimizations. > > No. That's why I tend to opt-out of writing in C and opt-in to writing > Perl. > > Perl (all versions) and Parrot are built around the assumption that > just about anything can change at run-time. Optimizing the language for > the sake of optimization at the expense of programmer convenience > doesn't feel very Perlish to me.
With Perl6, few people will compile whole librairies but most will load bytecode. At this late stage there is little place for tunable optimization except JITting or it would defeat the sharing of such code between different intances of Perl6. Nothing will preclude to dynamically extend classes. I note that in Perl6 many optimizations were autoloading for deferring compilation of material until it's really needed. With bytecode, it makes sense (at least optimization-wise) that the programmer decides if his classes will be sealed or some methods to be final because at the user level it is too late to decide. -- stef > > -- c >
