You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We've discussed this before (in private) and here's what Michael thought at the time:
I’m increasingly pro “force anything”. It would really allow us to remove a lot of delays, and delays are a shockingly large amount of our programs. It would I think also make it easier to transition to not requiring us to force builtins at all - old programs which still did so would continue to be valid since they’re allowed to force anything.
Not forcing builtins is something that Michele | Harmonicbrought up as well.
I'm not sure what my stance on the issue is: on the one hand removing things that don't have to be there is clearly beneficial, on the other hand I'm generally afraid of making the semantics of the language weirder. It would be great to implement this just to see how much performance improvement we get out of it. If it's just a few percent, I'd say it's not worth it.
I'll write to our scientists, maybe they happen to have a bright idea on how the semantics of allowing force on anything is actually fine.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Apparently this has been implemented twice: #4241 and #5112. It was an improvement, but not a very significant one in either of the cases.
It is however possible that the way we use UPLC is different to the way others use UPLC (in particular, we do use SOPs and others don't, not to the same extent at least, which means they're going to have much more forces and delays). We should check this hypothesis and run the same experiment but on the scripts submitted to the chain as opposed to our own benchmarks, maybe that'll reveal the usefulness of the optimization.
Michele | Harmonic reported on X:
We've discussed this before (in private) and here's what Michael thought at the time:
Not forcing builtins is something that Michele | Harmonic brought up as well.
I'm not sure what my stance on the issue is: on the one hand removing things that don't have to be there is clearly beneficial, on the other hand I'm generally afraid of making the semantics of the language weirder. It would be great to implement this just to see how much performance improvement we get out of it. If it's just a few percent, I'd say it's not worth it.
I'll write to our scientists, maybe they happen to have a bright idea on how the semantics of allowing
force
on anything is actually fine.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: