[rspec-users] Performance Questions (Was: class << self considered harmful... really?)
brian.takita at gmail.com
Sat Nov 29 14:28:58 EST 2008
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Brian Takita <brian.takita at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Scott Taylor
> <mailing_lists at railsnewbie.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:52 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Brian Takita <brian.takita at gmail.com>
>>>>> I'm wondering if this is a discussion about taste.
>>>> I think you're right. I've been using the 'def self.foo' style in various
>>>> languages for almost 20 years, so of course it feels more natural to me.
>>>> These languages (except for Smalltalk) had nowhere near the
>>>> capability nor 'objects all the way down'-ness of Ruby, and 'class <<
>>>> is one of those things.
>>> FWIW, the blog that led to this discussion suggested a performance
>>> impact as well. As RSpec has gotten dinged for being slower than
>>> alternatives, that interested me, so I did a little experiment def'ing
>>> methods 10k times with def self.method and class << self; def method
>> I'd be curious to see those benchmarks.
> Here are some benchmarks I did.
Duh, I didn't paste the link;
>> Also - re: performance: I've always wondered why RSpec (and other ruby
>> projects, for that matter) aren't using Kernel#autoload instead of
>> Kernel#require. If we used autoload, we wouldn't have to load the code
>> for, say, a matcher which is never used in a project.
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-users