Opened on 03/13/2014 at 05:04:26 PM
Closed on 02/04/2016 at 10:57:07 AM
#149 closed change (rejected)
[Typed objects] Implement dictionary types
| Reported by: | trev | Assignee: | trev |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | P5 | Milestone: | |
| Module: | Core | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Blocked By: | #150 | |
| Blocking: | #145 | Platform: | |
| Ready: | yes | Confidential: | no |
| Tester: | Verified working: | no | |
| Review URL(s): | |||
Description
Background
See #145.
What to change
Dictionary types with string keys and same-type values need to be implemented.
Attachments (0)
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed on 03/13/2014 at 05:07:03 PM by trev
- Blocked By 150 added
comment:2 Changed on 05/20/2014 at 04:03:26 PM by trev
- Owner set to trev
- Ready set
comment:3 Changed on 02/04/2016 at 07:55:37 AM by fhd
- Priority changed from P2 to P5
comment:4 Changed on 02/04/2016 at 10:57:07 AM by trev
- Resolution set to rejected
- Status changed from new to closed
In fact, at that point I am certain that we are dropping typed objects and go with Emscripten instead. The performance issues we had with Emscripten initially are bound to affect us with typed objects as well (important points: static generation of JS bindings, stack-based allocations, likely more). Fixing these issues was already non-trivial with Emscripten, but with our own toolchain it will require far more effort - this isn't going to pay off if we have a reasonable and maintained alternative.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
Since the Emscripten based approach is looking rather good, I'm not sure we really want to continue to work on Typed Objects. Makes it a P5.