Non-extensibility of Typed Arrays
sphink at gmail.com
Wed Sep 4 23:17:54 PDT 2013
On 09/04/2013 04:15 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com
> <mailto:brendan at mozilla.com>> wrote:
>>> Filip Pizlo <mailto:fpizlo at apple.com>
>>> September 4, 2013 12:34 PM
>>> My point is that having custom properties, or not, doesn't change
>>> the overhead for the existing typed array spec and hence has no
>>> effect on small arrays. The reasons for this include:
>>> - Typed arrays already have to be objects, and hence have a
>>> well-defined behavior on '=='.
>>> - Typed arrays already have to be able to tell you that they are in
>>> fact typed arrays, since JS doesn't have static typing.
>>> - Typed arrays already have prototypes, and those are observable
>>> regardless of expandability. A typed array from one global object
>>> will have a different prototype than a typed array from a different
>>> global object. Or am I misunderstanding the spec?
>>> - Typed arrays already have to know about their buffer.
>>> - Typed arrays already have to know about their offset into the
>>> buffer. Or, more likely, they have to have a second pointer that
>>> points directly at the base from which they are indexed.
>>> - Typed arrays already have to know their length.
>>> You're not proposing changing these aspects of typed arrays, right?
>> Of course not, but for very small fixed length arrays whose .buffer
>> is never accessed, an implementation might optimize harder.
> As I said, of course you can do this, and one way you could "try
> harder" is to put the buffer pointer in a side table. The side table
> maps array object pointers to their buffers, and you only make an
> entry in this table if .buffer is mentioned.
> But if we believe that this is a sensible thing for a VM to do - and
> of course it is! - then the same thing can be done for the custom
> property storage pointer.
>> It's hard for me to say "no, Filip's analysis shows that's never
>> worthwhile, for all time."
>>> The super short message is this: so long as an object obeys object
>>> identity on '==' then you can have "free if unused, suboptimal if
>>> you use them" custom properties by using a weak map on the side.
>>> This is true of typed arrays and it would be true of any other
>>> object that does object-style ==. If you allocate such an object
>>> and never add a custom property then the weak map will never have an
>>> entry for it; but if you put custom properties in the object then
>>> the map will have things in it. But with typed arrays you can do
>>> even better as my previous message suggests: so long as an object
>>> has a seldom-touched field and you're willing to eat an extra
>>> indirection or an extra branch on that field, you can have "free if
>>> unused, still pretty good if you use them" custom properties by
>>> displacing that field. Typed arrays have both of these properties
>>> right now and so expandability is a free lunch.
>> The last sentence makes a "for-all" assertion I don't think
>> implementations must be constrained by.
> How so? It is true that some VM implementations will be better than
> others. But ultimately every VM can implement every optimization that
> every other VM has; in fact my impression is that this is exactly what
> is happening as we speak.
> So, it doesn't make much sense to make language design decisions
> because it might make some implementor's life easier right now. If
> you could argue that something will /never/ be efficient if we add
> feature X, then that might be an interesting argument. But as soon as
> we identify one sensible optimization strategy for making something
> free, I would tend to think that this is sufficient to conclude that
> the feature is free and there is no need to constrain it. If we don't
> do this then we risk adding cargo-cult performance features that
> rapidly become obsolete.
This general argument bothers me slightly, because it assumes no
opportunity cost in making something free(ish). Even if you can
demonstrate that allowing X can be made fast, it isn't a complete
argument for allowing X, since disallowing X might enable some other
optimization or feature or semantic simplification. Such demonstrations
are still useful, since they can shoot down objections based solely on
But maybe I'm misinterpreting "...sufficient to conclude...that there is
no need to constrain [the feature]." Perhaps you only meant that there
is no need to constrain it *for reasons of performance*? If so, then you
only need consider the opportunity cost of other optimizations.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss