Hello<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/6/15 Igor Stasenko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com" target="_blank">siguctua@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
On 14 June 2012 23:47, Eliot Miranda <<a href="mailto:eliot.miranda@gmail.com">eliot.miranda@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<div class="im">><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Igor Stasenko <<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com">siguctua@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> What i really don't understand is why my opponents readily want to<br>
>> sacrifice the performance in order to deal with consequences of having<br>
>> complex systems, when its hard to reason about it,<br>
>> and at same time completely opposed to proposal of adding features<br>
>> which will help to reduce complexity in a first place, like adding<br>
>> slot for having arbitrary properties.<br>
><br>
><br>
</div>> You;re putting up a straw man. You *think* performance of immutability is an issue, but my experience tells me it isn't. I've implemented it before. So please stop raising an invalid objection.<br>
><br>
<br>
Remember, what i have been told when i implemented a language-side<br>
scheduling, removing the<br>
need of VM to even know that is Semaphore?<br>
I been told *it is slow*. And this was the *only* argument against it,<br>
why it is found unacceptable.<br></blockquote></div><br>Do you try your scheduling implementation on Cog? Very interesting what difference in performance<br>