From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 19:15:57
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>> It's very tempting to try to design an FSM library with better
>>> performance characteristics, but I don't have anywhere near enough
>>> time, esp. because I'd have to start out by becoming an FSM expert.
>>> I don't think I should have to do this before writing a review.
>>
>> Certainly not. However, I do expect that people questioning the
>> performance (and along with it the implementation) are able to ask
>> concrete questions why some things are the way they are. You
>> partially did that in your previous posts but only partially.
>
>> I think it is
>> difficult to respond to statements like:
>>
>> <quote>
>> Possibly the joints between parts of machines defined in separate TUs
>> must be weaker (i.e., less known at compile time) than the
>> connections between collections of states implemented in a single TU.
>> </quote>
>
> Why should it be easy to respond?
I'm not saying responding should be easy. My point was that such
statements are not likely to bring up useful answers.
> What I found shocking in your documentation was the statement that
> hand-written machines can be much faster than framework-generated
> machines.
One could probably produce an equally shocking case for just about any
non-trivial library out there. My "mistake" was to measure it and
publish the numbers.
> To accept a library with such poor performance (even if it
> is adequate in many cases) requires a very convincing justification,
> which I believe is obviously absent from the documentation.
That became sufficiently apparent during the review. My hope was that
people would understand that the provided functionality must have a
significant overhead. I was obviously wrong and there will be better
documentation in this direction.
> As a
> reviewer, I could have done my job simply by pointing to the absence
> of justification, and left it at that.
Fortunately, there are many other things that matter in a review.
> (This is similar to a motion
> for summary judgment by the defense in an American trial: if the
> plaintiff hasn't presented evidence, you just point out that fact and
> you're done.)
This seems to imply that in a review the library author is the plaintiff
and the reviewers are the defendants. I don't think the roles in a
review regarding evidence are usually as clear-cut as they are in a
trial.
> All my other vague suggestions were attempts to suggest either (i)
> how the library could have been redesigned to yield better
> performance or (ii) how you might have documented the impossibility
> of achieving better performance given your requirements.
This is exactly something that I don't think I will ever be able to
prove. I can only provide evidence that hints in this direction. New C++
techniques and idioms are discovered almost on a monthly basis and
there's always the possibility that such a technique enables a much
better implementation (e.g. I wouldn't have imagined that it is possible
to enumerate overloads like Alexander does or I couldn't possibly have
conceived the technique that makes possible the FOREACH macro). I think
it is close to impossible for an individual to be proficient in all the
currently known techniques, not to mention the ones that have yet to be
discovered.
> I'm aware
> they were not fully fleshed-out proposals. I was hoping you would try
> to meet me half-way, by trying to figure out what I was getting at
> and explaing why it wouldn't work.
... which I did in the cases where I could imagine candidate solutions.
I the cases where I couldn't see one I said so. Since the latter usually
didn't lead to a follow-up on your part I assumed that you don't have a
solution either. There's no meeting half-way in such a situation.
> At the very least, you could have
> asked me what I meant.
AFAICT, that was usually not the problem. I *think* I mostly understood
what you meant, see above.
>> As I said before, I think it is close to impossible to prove that a
>> certain design is the best performance-wise. Also, I don't claim that
>> there isn't any room in the current implementation for improvements,
>> rather I think it has reached a stage where substantial (>= 2x
>> faster) optimizations are non-trivial.
>> I can only describe why common optimizations don't work or why they
>> would violate one ore more of the requirements.
>
> All I wanted is a succint description of the various known approaches
> to implementing FSMs -- including existing frameworks and stuff you
> tried in the early stages of developing your framework -- together
> with an explanation of the performance tradeoffs.
I'll add a few links with a discussion of the performance-tradeoffs.
>> Things that I
>> *consciously* avoided or unsuccessfully tried are described in the
>> rationale.
>
> If all the things you unsuccessfully tried are described in the
> rationale, then you didn't try very much. I was giving you the
> beneift of the doubt by assuming you had omitted describing your
> alternate designs.
What else should I have tried?
>> Moreover, during any programmer career a bag of knowledge
>> is acquired that is unconsciously applied to every programming job.
>> Naturally, this bag of knowledge is not the same for everyone
>
> This is obviously true.
>
>> which is
>> probably the main reason why the rationale seems to be sufficient for
>> some people while others find it unsatisfying.
>
> This is just funny. People who find your rationale satisfying could
> be people who don't care about performance as long as it's good
> enough for their application or people who failed to consider the
> same design alternatives you failed to consider.
Which alternatives did I fail to consider?
>> Right. Here's a description of the relevant parts of the
>> implementation:
>
> <snip detailed description>
>
> This sort of stuff should be in the docs.
It will be.
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.