I'm curious on this part, "Although monomorphisation is widely used, we are one of the first to formalise it.", which are other language had formalise as well?
Featherweight Go
11–20 of 169 posts
Re: Featherweight Go
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
how come hundred cores is only speedup of ~6?
Re: Featherweight Go
#13Info on the current implementation of generics in Go how to tryout the generics branch parhamn mentions is available at https://blog.tempus-ex.com/generics-in-go-how-they-work-and-...
Re: Featherweight Go
#14The irony of going back to Featherweight Java, done in 2001. At least some work is being done, even if "This is the beginning of the story, not the end".
What about the irony of pjmlp dismissing something because it's based on an obscure language going as far back as 2001? :-)
Re: Featherweight Go
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
Don't ever try Rust.
Re: Featherweight Go
#16Info on the current implementation of generics in Go how to tryout the generics branch parhamn mentions is available at https://blog.tempus-ex.com/generics-in-go-how-they-work-and-...
That's from the previous generics proposal, substantially different from this one.
Re: Featherweight Go
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
how come hundred cores is only speedup of ~6?
On large C++ projects there are usually a ton of steps that can't be perfectly parallelized. Linking is usually single threaded, you might have dependencies that are way less than 100 CPP files. CMake is single threaded and very slow. Lots of projects have custom Python scripts for code generation or whatnot - all single threaded.
Re: Featherweight Go
#18There’s also a generics implementation on a branch of the go repo. I’m most curious how they perform on compilation speed assuming a big project makes decent use of generics. I doubt golang would merge anything that causes significant slowdown. And I don’t blame them, the only reason I don’t dread TypeScript dev given its slow compile times is you can typecheck async and strip the typing information for the hot reloa…
Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
How many lines/files/classes split over how many targets for that 10 minute build?
I just compiled around 240k lines of scala split over around 200 gradle subprojects with gradle 6.5rc1 and scalac 2.12.11. Limited to 10 gradle workers. Took 4 minutes without the gradle build cache enabled.
Re: Featherweight Go
#19The syntax really makes me think to Zig - https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Introducing-the-Co.... I'd be curious to know if the authors of this paper have looked at it.
Re: Featherweight Go
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
how come hundred cores is only speedup of ~6?
You can only say the alphabet one way, starting from A and ending in Z. Some tasks can't be parallelized. I expect a lot of those cores wait for critical paths to execute.