typed array strawman proposal
brendan at mozilla.com
Wed Jan 27 10:17:04 PST 2010
On Jan 27, 2010, at 10:15 AM, P T Withington wrote:
> On 2010-01-27, at 13:06, Brendan Eich wrote:
>> Anyway, we do not want to require exotic techniques. We want to
>> allow C++ implementations, which require constants to avoid obvious
>> performance hits for no good reason. Competition will kill any
>> browser foolish enough to take such hits.
> That seems inconsistent with the philosophy that classes can be
> syntactic sugar on closures that will be magically optimized.
That philosophy cannot possibly implement native GPU-oriented fixed-
size machine-int-element-typed arrays!
> I'm just seconding the suggestion that you could have a flexible
> syntax that would allow specifying any byte width and offset and
> optimize the cases where the byte width and offset are known at
> compile time. Instead of guessing which of the n*m combinations you
> should cast in stone as built-in types.
Generality is a disease in design. "It would be nice" is a malediction.
More information about the es-discuss