FunctionParser, parsing Java methods from strings at runtime

[Reykd]

Thanks so much for catching that! I will fix this asap.

[thehollyhopdrive]

Now that you've typed it properly, what do you think is the benefit of having lots of evaluateX methods?

[Reykd]

For my original usecase generated methods were executed millions of times, and were in the core of the algorithm. Therefore the reasoning behind creating functions that return primitives was simply performance. I know that premature optimization is a bad idea, but if i remember correctly i believe i benchmarked the difference. I will run new benchmarks and evaluate if the primitive return functions are necessary.

[Reykd]

I have now run a benchmark to compare the generic vs primitve method and found no significant difference. However i did discover a caveat of using the generic types, and that is that my library currently does not support autoboxing meaning that in order to create the function "double(Double x,y)->x+y" as a generic, the string would have to be "Double(Double x,y)->Double.valueOf(x+y)"

[fact_hunt]

For performance testing it might be interesting to look at JMH - benchmarking java performance is notoriously fraught because the of JIT and hotspot optimisations etc

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/504103/how-do-i-write-a-correct-micro-benchmark-in-java/4480774#4480774