Value Class Option minimal implementation [Arrow 2] #2951
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See #2950 for the more intrusive version of this PR. This implementation just turns
Optioninto avalue class, thus removing theSomeandNoneclasses, and replacing them with aptfun Someandval None. Note that this change also breaks pattern matching withwhenon Options, and thusfoldneeds to be used in a lot of cases (or other apt functions likeflatMap,getOrElse, etc)I reran the benchmarks mentioned in #2950. The code for the benchmarks, and the results for this run, is available on value-option-minimal-benchmark. Here's a summary of the results, benchmarked using kotlinx.benchmark:
Note that this impl is "value class Option minimal
, while the more-intrusive #2950 is "value class Option". Seems like the performance impact of this implementation is quite marginal. Not sure if this PR is worth the loss of elegance ofwhen`. Seems like the JVM is very good at optimising tight loops where objects are created and destroyed in there. Maybe the benchmarks are flawed? I'd love to hear thoughts about this!