Comment by swannodette | Hacker News Reader

Comment by swannodette | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That post says Q's stack traces are fine if you set a flag, and that generator-based libraries also pay extra for full stack traces. I expect ClojureScript does better because it can compile its own code, and the same would go for a promise-based language (or JS preprocessor).

Q explicitly says that you don't want to enable stack traces for production, which seems like a fairly high cost to pay. Neither core.async nor ES6 generators need to do anything special to have clean traces - it's fundamental to how the system works.

I'm not sure what you mean about async streams, but I wasn't seriously after more changes to JS syntax, just wishing (1) E had taken off and (2) new languages learn from it.

Sorry for not being clear, my posts are all part of continuum. My point is hardly anyone uses promises for fine grained asynchrony because of the costs and debugging indirection. My point is that you can do both coarse/fine grained asynchrony at little cost and without obfuscating your errors during development or in production if you move beyond promises.

"the debugging story for generators is somewhat bad, especially because of the missing stack traces for thrown errors. Fortunately, there are solutions and workarounds, like those implemented by genny (obtrusive, reduces performance) and galaxy (unobtrusive, but requires native modules)."

From the post you brought up, http://spion.github.io/posts/analysis-generators-and-other-a... -- by the author of Genny. As I said, that's at least qualitatively the same as Q; quantitatively I haven't looked. At https://github.com/spion/genny there's the example line

    require('genny').longStackSupport = true

and "This results with CPU overhead of approximately 500% and memory overhead of approximately 40%. In the future, the overhead will probably be eliminated in node but not in browsers." The benchmark post says Catcher is worse.

The README for Q shows the same switch and says "This feature does come with somewhat-serious performance and memory overhead, however. If you're working with lots of promises, or trying to scale a server to many users, you should probably keep it off. But in development, go for it!"

I'm not a current user of any of these systems, but this is why I said the first-order cause of any performance difference appears to be that ClojureScript is not a library.

I can't really speak to other generators libraries nor their how good their debugging stories are based on how good or bad their designs are. core.async is just a library and not directly part of ClojureScript. I do know that we need nothing to support good traces and we do not take any performance hit of any kind for this "feature".

Not a Javascript library. The post advocates generators for Javascript programmers. For core.async to tell us the efficiency of JS code of this style, it'd need to expose a generator-based interface and compile to generator-based code like a human writes. If I understand right, it doesn't, and the JS libraries that do work this way are much less efficient when full stack traces are turned on. (If there are others, I hope someone will chime in.)

If you think those two libraries are just bad, I'll update somewhat in that direction.

No the post advocates generators plus a competent channel abstraction. It's going to be hard to compare generator libraries to core.async, far as I can tell none employ the comprehensive set of optimizations that we do for time and memory. Perhaps when someone ports our ideas to JavaScript a real comparison can be made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com