Lazy evaluation

Steve Fink sphink at gmail.com
Tue Sep 12 21:39:12 UTC 2017


My intent was only to respond to the performance analysis, specifically 
the implication that the only performance cost is in building the new 
hidden class. That is not the case; everything that touches those 
objects is affected as well.

Whether or not it's still the right way to accomplish what you're after, 
I wasn't venturing an opinion. I could probably come up with a benchmark 
showing that your WeakMap approach can be faster -- eg by only accessing 
the property once, but feeding the old and new versions of the object 
into code that executes many many many times (doing something that never 
looks at that property, but is now slightly slower because it isn't 
monomorphic). But I suspect that for practical usage, redefining the 
property *is* faster than a WeakMap.

If I were to look beyond for other solutions for your problem, then I'm 
just speculating. Can decorators populate multiple properties once the 
expensive work is done?

I really want to tell the VM what's going on. I guess if it knew that 
accessing a getter property would convert it into a value property, and 
that it was doing something that would access the getter, then it could 
know to use the outgoing shape instead of the incoming shape. If only it 
knew that the getter was pure... but that way lies madness.

Given that most code that would slow down would also trigger the lazy 
defineProperty(), it's really not going to be that much of an issue. Any 
access after the first will see a single shape.

meh. Just take the perf hit, with awareness that you may be triggering 
slight slowdowns in all users of that object. Or you might not. I doubt 
it'll be that big, since you'll probably just end up with an inline 
cache for both shapes and there won't be all that much to optimize based 
on knowing a single shape.

Oh, and I think I was wrong about property enumeration order. The 
properties already existed, so defineProperty shouldn't modify the order 
IIUC. (I am awful with language semantics.)

On 9/11/17 2:48 PM, Andrea Giammarchi wrote:
> Steve it's not solved in any other way. Even if you use a WeakMap with 
> an object, you gonna lazy attach properties to that object.
>
> I honestly would like to see alternatives, if any, 'cause so far there 
> is a benchmark and it proves already lazy property assignment is 
> around 4x faster.
>
> So, it's easy to say "it's not the best approach" but apparently hard 
> to prove that's the case?
>
> Looking forward to see better alternatives.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Steve Fink <sphink at gmail.com 
> <mailto:sphink at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 9/11/17 5:36 AM, Matthew Robb wrote:
>>     > I think it's irrelevant if internally VMs are not too happy. VMs
>>     are there to solve our problems, not vice-versa ;-)
>>>>     This ^​ is very important for everyone to get on board with.
>>     Regardless the cost should be negligible as the shape is only
>>     changing at the point of delayed init. This will cause, for
>>     example V8, to deop the object and have to build a new hidden
>>     class but only the one time. I guess it would potentially be
>>     interesting to support an own property that when undefined would
>>     delegate up the proto chain.
>
>     (I don't know, but) I would expect it to be worse than this. The
>     shape is changing at the point of delayed init, which means that
>     if an engine is associating the possible set of shapes with the
>     constructor (or some other form of allocation site + mandatory
>     initialization), then that site will produce multiple shapes. All
>     code using such objects, if they ever see both shapes, will have
>     to handle them both. Even worse, if you have several of these
>     delayed init properties and you end up lazily initializing them in
>     different orders (which seems relatively easy to do), then the
>     internal slot offsets will vary.
>
>     You don't need to bend over backwards to make things easy for the
>     VMs, but you don't want to be mean to them either. :-)
>
>     Not to mention that the observable property iteration order will vary.
>
>     On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
>     <andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com <mailto:andrea.giammarchi at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Peter.
>>
>>         Unless you have a faster way to do lazy property assignment,
>>         I think it's irrelevant if internally VMs are not too happy.
>>         VMs are there to solve our problems, not vice-versa ;-)
>>
>>         Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:54 AM, peter miller
>>         <fuchsia.groan at virgin.net <mailto:fuchsia.groan at virgin.net>>
>>         wrote:
>>
>>             Hi Andrea,
>>
>>                 ```
>>                 class CaseLazy {
>>                   get bar() {
>>                     var value = Math.random();
>>                     Object.defineProperty(this, 'bar', {value});
>>                     return value;
>>                   }
>>                 }
>>                 ```
>>
>>
>>             Doesn't this count as redefining the shape of the object?
>>             Or are the compilers fine with it?
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     es-discuss mailing list
>     es-discuss at mozilla.org <mailto:es-discuss at mozilla.org>
>     https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
>     <https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20170912/f4685ef2/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list