[image] (Compiler) Performance of Dict It will always be possible to load one tiny thing and force recompilation of a huge amount of code. It seems to me that: This is a security liability for the language, meaning it can not be used in anything critical. Which is another reason why I think …

[image] (Compiler) Performance of Dict That is a security liability for the language, meaning it can not be used in anything critical. This makes no sense. You are running arbitrary code in the same process anyway. Please don’t spread misinformation like this.

If that were true, no programs written in C would be acceptable since you can overwrite arbitrary memory. One of the biggest failings of java et. al. is the idea that code being run in process needs protection from itself.

[image] (Compiler) Performance of Dict I think isolation is a good feature What do you mean by isolation here? Would this be doable while retaining the composability, which is one of the foremost strengths of the language? Or are you just referring to type piracy?

[image] (Compiler) Performance of Dict Is it worth the trouble? What do you think? Well, I didn’t ask about that. I asked if this might impact composability. Prohibiting type piracy doesn’t sound so terrible, but package ‘isolation’ and contextual dispatch sounds as though they might affect th…

In this context, I think the right way to think about it is “type piracy is just loading code in the wrong order.” While it should generally be avoided, there are legitimate cases for this . The classic case is ColorVectorSpace, which provides operations on colors that are “wrong” from the standpoint…

[image] TsurHerman: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Why did you replace your posts in this topic with nonsense? This is somewhat disruptive, and makes it difficult for future readers who come across these posts to reconstruct these discussions.

[image] TsurHerman: AaaaaaaaaaasssssszzAaa I don’t think this is acceptable behaviour, frankly. It’s good that people can edit their posts, but this is abusing that right.

I didn’t move my posts, and it wasn’t my intention to open a discussion on code isolation. So since I felt abused and rejected, I tried to delete my posts… It took me some time to find a way to remove my posts.

Having a side discussion split off and moved to a different topic is pretty normal, and should not be seen as an insult. Maybe you could ask for this thread to be locked, but deleting content like this is counterproductive, imho. At this point, the thread is rendered worthless.

Just by way of an analogy: Let’s say you’re with a group of people over a board game, and the game goes south for you. Maybe you’d excuse yourself and say you lost interest, but you wouldn’t stand up and sweep the board off the table, would you?

Code isolation side discussion

Internals & Design

kristoffer.carlsson August 27, 2019, 4:25pm 2

This makes no sense. You are running arbitrary code in the same process anyway. Please don’t spread misinformation like this.

11 Likes

Topic		Replies	Views
"Meaning", type-piracy, and method merging Internals & Design type-piracy	68	5503	June 3, 2018
Is dispatch on another type's parameter (::NotMyType{MyType}) piracy? General Usage	32	786	May 29, 2024
Is it OK to structure my packages like this (benign type piracy)? General Usage package , packages , design , type-piracy	5	403	March 6, 2025
How bad is type piracy actually? General Usage type-piracy	12	5760	April 21, 2020
Julep: Taking multiple dispatch,export,import,binary compilation seriously Internals & Design namespaces	121	9216	May 18, 2018

Code isolation side discussion

Related topics