Re: [RFC][Vote] Typed Properties

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > >> The performance effect of this implementation is terrible. >> >> Assignment to typed property is 2.3 times slower. >> Assignment to untyped property in a class with typed properties is 1.8 times slower. >> >> See the benchmark >> >> https://gist.github.com/dstogov/1b678712adeee51665cdd829195bb800 > > This is not good. I wonder why these tests weren't made before the vote > and results wheren't added in the RFC. Should we make it a standard > practice to do so? Having 2x slowdown on each property access sounds > like a bad idea. The question is : * should the vote be an idea-based vote, or integrate the code into the vote ? My vote did not integrate the code, but the feature. The idea is that if the RFC passes, then the feature is agreed, and we still have some time to find a better implementation. If we could not find one, then the feature should be abandoned or post-poned until a new patch. If the new patch changes the implementation, then the RFC should be reopened. My thoughts. Julien.Pauli