• bearophile (5/5) Apr 27 2009 A pair of short posts that show the "dynamic" keyword of C#4:
• Unknown W. Brackets (13/21) Apr 27 2009 I read until I hit this:
• Don (5/12) Apr 28 2009 Yeah. I've been worried that D is getting too complicated; I'm worried
• Christopher Wright (4/11) Apr 28 2009 It's decompiled: "This is where our friend Reflector comes in."
• Unknown W. Brackets (5/18) Apr 28 2009 Specifically, I'm concerned about ".<>". What is that? I guess it's a
• Benji Smith (7/10) Apr 28 2009 Actually, he does. It's at the bottom of the "second look" post:
• Unknown W. Brackets (7/20) Apr 28 2009 No, these are averages of run time. These are not the upfront costs,

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

http://www.codethinked.com/post/2008/10/28/C-40-New-Features-Part-1-dynamic-keyword.aspx

http://www.codethinked.com/post/2008/10/28/C-40-New-Features-Part-11-dynamic-keyword-second-look.aspx

Bye,
bearophile

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

I read until I hit this:

    4.     if (<Main>o__SiteContainer0.<>p__Site1 == null)

And I was suddenly hit with a huge feeling of "I'm glad D doesn't look 
like this."  Seriously, I hope this is some sort of decompiled syntax 
and not actually valid.

I wonder what the overhead times were.  He should've timed them both and 
listed them separately.  For example, is DynamicMethod a complete win, 
or is the dynamic keyword cheaper as far as base cost?

This reminds me of the opDotExp discussion.  I can see that caching the 
cost could potentially be beneficial, as shown here.  That's the main 
offshoot I get from it.

-[Unknown]


bearophile wrote:

 
 http://www.codethinked.com/post/2008/10/28/C-40-New-Features-Part-1-dynamic-keyword.aspx
 
 http://www.codethinked.com/post/2008/10/28/C-40-New-Features-Part-11-dynamic-keyword-second-look.aspx
 
 Bye,
 bearophile

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 I read until I hit this:
 
    4.     if (<Main>o__SiteContainer0.<>p__Site1 == null)
 
 And I was suddenly hit with a huge feeling of "I'm glad D doesn't look 
 like this."  Seriously, I hope this is some sort of decompiled syntax 
 and not actually valid.


Yeah. I've been worried that D is getting too complicated; I'm worried 
that it's lost too much of its original simplicity. But then I look at 

complexity, yet with a lot less power than D.

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 I read until I hit this:
 
    4.     if (<Main>o__SiteContainer0.<>p__Site1 == null)
 
 And I was suddenly hit with a huge feeling of "I'm glad D doesn't look 
 like this."  Seriously, I hope this is some sort of decompiled syntax 
 and not actually valid.

It's decompiled: "This is where our friend Reflector comes in."

It's also probably valid. However, no sane person would write that way, 
so it's not a huge issue. You can do similarly ugly things in D.

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

Specifically, I'm concerned about ".<>".  What is that?  I guess it's a 
namespace, and so it's an empty one.  That just seems wrong... like D 
having "x..y" or "x.!()y", which it definitely doesn't have.

-[Unknown]


Christopher Wright wrote:
 Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 I read until I hit this:

    4.     if (<Main>o__SiteContainer0.<>p__Site1 == null)

 And I was suddenly hit with a huge feeling of "I'm glad D doesn't look 
 like this."  Seriously, I hope this is some sort of decompiled syntax 
 and not actually valid.

 
 It's decompiled: "This is where our friend Reflector comes in."
 
 It's also probably valid. However, no sane person would write that way, 
 so it's not a huge issue. You can do similarly ugly things in D.

Benji Smith <dlanguage benjismith.net> writes:

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 I wonder what the overhead times were.  He should've timed them both and 
 listed them separately.  For example, is DynamicMethod a complete win, 
 or is the dynamic keyword cheaper as far as base cost?

Actually, he does. It's at the bottom of the "second look" post:

   Compile Time Bound: 6 ms
   Dynamically Bound with dynamic keyword: 45ms
   Dynamically Bound with MethodInfo.Invoke - 10943ms
   Dynamically Bound with DynamicMethod - 8ms

--benji

"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:

No, these are averages of run time.  These are not the upfront costs, 
but instead the average over 2 million calls or whatever.

For example, if DynamicMethod takes 20000ms upfront (to compile the il, 
although that seems way too long), it might still be smarter to use the 
dynamic keyword even in performance critical code.

-[Unknown]


Benji Smith wrote:
 Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
 I wonder what the overhead times were.  He should've timed them both 
 and listed them separately.  For example, is DynamicMethod a complete 
 win, or is the dynamic keyword cheaper as far as base cost?

 
 Actually, he does. It's at the bottom of the "second look" post:
 
   Compile Time Bound: 6 ms
   Dynamically Bound with dynamic keyword: 45ms
   Dynamically Bound with MethodInfo.Invoke - 10943ms
   Dynamically Bound with DynamicMethod - 8ms
 
 --benji