Index: doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex =================================================================== --- doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex (revision ab16fc5c5dcde06789b487c9fd51a9df93a9d30a) +++ doc/generic_types/generic_types.tex (revision 2b8a89702850db0bd2de14ded00886ddcf967e39) @@ -949,9 +949,9 @@ In fact, \CFA's features for generic programming can enable faster runtime execution than idiomatic @void *@-based C code. This claim is demonstrated through a set of generic-code-based micro-benchmarks in C, \CFA, and \CC (see stack implementations in Appendix~\ref{sec:BenchmarkStackImplementation}). -Since all these languages share a subset comprising standard C, maximal-performance benchmarks would show little runtime variance, other than in length and clarity of source code. -A more illustrative benchmark is the idiomatic costs of each language's features covering common usage. +Since all these languages share a subset essentially comprising standard C, maximal-performance benchmarks would show little runtime variance, other than in length and clarity of source code. +A more illustrative benchmark measures the costs of idiomatic usage of each language's features. Figure~\ref{fig:BenchmarkTest} shows the \CFA benchmark tests for a generic stack based on a singly linked-list, a generic pair-data-structure, and a variadic @print@ routine similar to that in Section~\ref{sec:variadic-tuples}. The benchmark test is similar for C and \CC. -The experiment uses element types @int@ and @pair(_Bool, char)@, and pushes $N=40M$ elements on a generic stack, copies the stack, clears one of the stacks, finds the maximum value in the other stack, and prints $N/2$ (to reduce graph height) constants. +The experiment uses element types @int@ and @pair(_Bool, char)@, and pushes $N=40M$ elements on a generic stack, copies the stack, clears one of the stacks, finds the maximum value in the other stack, and prints $N$ values of each type (2 per @print@ call). The structure of each benchmark implemented is: C with @void *@-based polymorphism, \CFA with the presented features, \CC with templates, and \CC using only class inheritance for polymorphism, called \CCV. @@ -959,5 +959,5 @@ hence runtime checks are necessary to safely down-cast objects. The most notable difference among the implementations is in memory layout of generic types: \CFA and \CC inline the stack and pair elements into corresponding list and pair nodes, while C and \CCV lack such a capability and instead must store generic objects via pointers to separately-allocated objects. -For the print benchmark, idiomatic printing is used: the C and \CFA variants used @stdio.h@, while the \CC and \CCV variants used @iostream@; preliminary tests show this distinction has little runtime impact. +For the print benchmark, idiomatic printing is used: the C and \CFA variants used @stdio.h@, while the \CC and \CCV variants used @iostream@; preliminary tests show this distinction has negligible runtime impact. Note, the C benchmark uses unchecked casts as there is no runtime mechanism to perform such checks, while \CFA and \CC provide type-safety statically. @@ -1011,5 +1011,5 @@ & \CT{C} & \CT{\CFA} & \CT{\CC} & \CT{\CCV} \\ \hline maximum memory usage (MB) & 10001 & 2502 & 2503 & 11253 \\ -source code size (lines) & 247 & 223 & 165 & 339 \\ +source code size (lines) & 247 & 222 & 165 & 339 \\ redundant type annotations (lines) & 39 & 2 & 2 & 15 \\ binary size (KB) & 14 & 229 & 18 & 38 \\ @@ -1019,14 +1019,14 @@ The C and \CCV variants are generally the slowest with the largest memory footprint, because of their less-efficient memory layout and the pointer-indirection necessary to implement generic types; this inefficiency is exacerbated by the second level of generic types in the pair-based benchmarks. -By contrast, the \CFA and \CC variants run in roughly equivalent time for both the integer and pair of @_Bool@ and @char@ because the storage layout is equivalent. +By contrast, the \CFA and \CC variants run in roughly equivalent time for both the integer and pair of @_Bool@ and @char@ because the storage layout is equivalent, with the inlined libraries (\ie no separate compilation) and greater maturity of the \CC compiler contributing to its lead. \CCV is slower than C largely due to the cost of runtime type-checking of down-casts (implemented with @dynamic_cast@); There are two outliers in the graph for \CFA: all prints and pop of @pair@. Both of these cases result from the complexity of the C-generated polymorphic code, so that the GCC compiler is unable to optimize some dead code and condense nested calls. -A compiler for \CFA could easily perform these optimizations. +A compiler designed for \CFA could easily perform these optimizations. Finally, the binary size for \CFA is larger because of static linking with the \CFA libraries. -\CC performs best because it uses header-only inlined libraries (\ie no separate compilation). -\CFA and \CC have the advantage of a pre-written generic @pair@ and @stack@ type to reduce line count, while C and \CCV require it to written by the programmer, as C does not have a generic collections-library and \CCV does not use the \CC standard template library by construction. -For \CCV, the definition of @object@ and wrapper classes for @bool@, @char@, @int@, and @const char *@ are included in the line count, which inflates its line count, as an actual object-oriented language would include these in the standard library; +\CFA is also competitive in terms of source code size, measured as a proxy for programmer effort. The line counts in Table~\ref{tab:eval} include implementations of @pair@ and @stack@ types for all four languages for purposes of direct comparison, though it should be noted that \CFA and \CC have pre-written data structures in their standard libraries that programmers would generally use instead. Use of these standard library types has minimal impact on the performance benchmarks, but shrinks the \CFA and \CC benchmarks to 73 and 54 lines, respectively. +On the other hand, C does not have a generic collections-library in its standard distribution, resulting in frequent reimplementation of such collection types by C programmers. +\CCV does not use the \CC standard template library by construction, and in fact includes the definition of @object@ and wrapper classes for @bool@, @char@, @int@, and @const char *@ in its line count, which inflates this count somewhat, as an actual object-oriented language would include these in the standard library; with their omission the \CCV line count is similar to C. We justify the given line count by noting that many object-oriented languages do not allow implementing new interfaces on library types without subclassing or wrapper types, which may be similarly verbose.