[erlang-questions] Binary string literal syntax
Tue Jun 12 17:56:28 CEST 2018
That would be great!
Would there be much reason at all to use binary for text if this were
the case now that utf is also supported? I suppose it would still be
optimal if one is passing around large chunks of >64 bytes of text, but
besides that are there any performance reasons to use binaries over
lists assuming the memory usage were the same?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018, at 10:47 AM, Lukas Larsson wrote:
> Great discussion and ideas here!
> One thing that I've not seen mentioned is; what if the list
> representation was made more memory efficient? Today its 16 bytes per
> codepoint vs binaries that are 1-4 byte per codepoint. What if lists
> only used 8 bytes for each codepoint? what if it used the same as
> binaries? How would that change this discussion?>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Sean Hinde
> <sean.hinde@REDACTED> wrote:>>
>> Would an EEP help the existing work of the OTP team in this area or
>> is there already a clear plan and this would be a distraction?>>
> There is no plan about what should be done in this area. We want to
> continue developing the possibility to encode and decode protocols.
> We've had numerous discussions about how we would like to extent the
> binary syntax (or the syntax in general) in order to make it better
> for both novice and advanced users of Erlang, but have yet to come up
> with something that we like. So far our discussions have been mostly
> about decoding protocols, because we see that as the larger pain
> point, but maybe we were wrong about that?>
> Regarding creating a new text type, I'm personally skeptical, but
> haven't formed a strong opinion on the matter yet. Adding a new type
> is a huge undertaking and we should be very sure that what we want
> before doing it.>
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions