Exactly. On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Allen Madsen <allen.c.mad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe what Xavier means is that you need to demonstrate at the > places where you would do the replacement that the speed up is worth > the readability cost. If on a single request, that code executes once, > it's probably not noticeable. That's why in the benchmark you need to > run it 100 million times. If you can demonstrate that the place > containing the `loop` is a hotspot that gets executed many times in a > request, then the optimization is probably justified. That's why it > wouldn't just be a find and replace for all instances. > Allen Madsen > http://www.allenmadsen.com > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Andrey Molchanov <neod...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Thanks for your feedback. > > I agree with you about use idioms for better readable code. Its cool, but > > Rails has many places where this not use. A lot of code can be corrected > > according to this, but this is not done. > > And I thought, why not use it in favor of speed? > > That is what I was based when wrote this message. > > > > > > пятница, 6 мая 2016 г., 14:31:40 UTC+3 пользователь Xavier Noria написал: > >> > >> In general, the Rails code base wants to use Ruby idiomatically. > >> > >> loop is the most succinct idiom in Ruby for those kinds of loops, see > for > >> example: > >> > >> > >> > https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/254f57ca3668398a5fcfd4f63be5d91c4c3b1cd4/actioncable/lib/action_cable/connection/stream_event_loop.rb#L66 > >> > >> If a Ruby programmer sees a while true there instead, generally speaking > >> they would shake their heads a little bit. Why is this not a loop? A > comment > >> would be needed: "This while true is here for performance". > >> > >> When is it OK to do a little strange thing for performance? Where it > >> matters, not systematically across the code base. So, for example, if > you > >> change loop with while true in the previous example, probably there > won't be > >> any noticeable difference. So you just don't. > >> > >> And if the gain is tiny, the cost of writing something less idiomatic, > >> elegant, or readable is still not worth it. Because code has to be read. > >> > >> You depart from this with a scalpel, precisely where it pays off. > >> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;>. > > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com > <javascript:;>. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;>. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com > <javascript:;>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
