On 12 April 2013 17:30, Vladimir Panteleev <vladimir@thecybershadow.net> wrote:

On Friday, 12 April 2013 at 07:22:42 UTC, Manu wrote:

I agree that spawning processes is a low-frequency operation, but it's a
principle I'm trying to illustrate here.

My point was that it is not that it's low-frequency, it's that the OS process creation operation is so expensive, that a few memory allocations will not make much of a difference in comparison. It's the same as optimizing memory allocations in a program which is intrinsically disk- or network-bound.

Which OS are we talking about?

What OS runs on an a Nintendo Wii? There's only 24mb of system memory in that machine, can we afford to allocate it frivolously?

Will I avoid phobos as a policy? Yes.

You can argue whatever you like. I've said my part, and I wherever it lands is not my call.

Well, that's just not very constructive.

Your complaint in valid in general, but I was pointing out that it is not much so when specifically aimed at std.process.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point (although I don't agree either). Perhaps in the context of std.process it's not so important... but it's still an opportunity to set a precedent.

Honestly, any new module could have appeared for approval at this particular moment and I would have made the same criticisms. Not necessarily picking on std.process in particular, I'm making a point about phobos, and what is considered acceptable.