On 11 October 2012 14:59, H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/11/12, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 October 2012 11:54, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 October 2012 11:42, Frank Shearar frank.shearar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 October 2012 08:45, H. Hirzel hannes.hirzel@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/11/12, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2012 22:55, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Colin Putney colin@wiresong.com > wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Eliot Miranda >> eliot.miranda@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >> > Right now I'm redesigning the bytecode set to lift limits on >> > branch >> > distances, number of literals, and number of inst vars. So a >> > small >> > increment. >> >> I suppose that Newspeak is different from Smalltalk in terms of the >> size and complexity of methods that it encourages. It could be that >> the existing limits are blocking the development of Newspeak, and >> obviously legacy code is much less of an issue for Newspeak than >> Squeak. > > > Not newspeak. But within Cadence we have internal customers that are > hitting limits we must lift. >
<trolling> perhaps then it would cost less to customers to attend a small course on programming basics then? </trolling>
The biggest bloat of inst vars, which i ever seen in smalltalk is Interpreter & ObjectMemory classes. And this is mainly because this code has to be translated to C due to limitations/design of VMMaker. But VMMaker is special. A regular code don't requires so much state kept per single object.
Now, it is hard to imagine, how much more complex the software must be that it requires even more instances in class than those two? Especially when you saying it is not because of Newspeak.
These news saddening me a lot.
The answer is
"It depends".
Normally having more 255+ instance variables is a sign of bad design. But not always. There are exceptions. It depends on the problem domain and business case.
I actually welcome that this limitation is lifted because of PetitParser (though Lukas has a workaround). At the moment I have not hit the limit yet.
Is that from a large PPCompositParser? (Because each rule manifests as an instvar initialised as a delegate parser. Delegates are lazily resolved post initialisation.)
oh, man, that's lame. If/when you hit that limit, you can always refactor the code to use dictionary to hold/cache parsers instead of inst vars. What PPCompositParser does is one of the things why i don't like PetitParser. Sure, i don't want to discourage from using it, just my personal taste.
You can't do that refactoring, at least if you want to keep the PPCompositeParser: it has a very strong opinion. Which is your point, of course. I agree: if you don't like the taste of the PPCompositeParser, don't use it at all. (And hope that the grammars you wish to compose aren't PPCompositeParsers.)
+1
For limited grammars it's very handy, because Smalltalk doesn't have implicit sends, and this way you still get to avoid writing "self" everywhere.
+1
What do you use for grammars which are not "limited"? :-)
A few years ago I started writing a parser for Delphi (not in PetitParser): that was upwards of 250 rules, and I hadn't nailed down everything I wanted to. I'd probably just hold my nose and say "self foo" everywhere, with PetitParser.
frank
--Hannes
frank
frank
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.