GitLab

If you've been following along for a while now, you don't need to see
the benchmarks to know what's coming.  The long story short is:
allocations are the root of all evil, and we got rid of some, and now
things are significantly faster.

Here's the numbers:

basicnode (just for a baseline to compare to):

```
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_AssembleStandard-8         1988986               588 ns/op             520 B/op          8 allocs/op
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_AssembleEntry-8            2158921               559 ns/op             520 B/op          8 allocs/op
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_Iteration-8               19679841                67.0 ns/op            16 B/op          1 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Marshal_Map3StrInt-8               1377094               870 ns/op             544 B/op          7 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Marshal_Map3StrInt_CodecNull-8     4560031               278 ns/op             176 B/op          3 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Unmarshal_Map3StrInt-8              368763              3239 ns/op            1608 B/op         32 allocs/op
```

realgen, previously, using fcb:

```
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_AssembleStandard-8         4293072               278 ns/op             208 B/op          5 allocs/op
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_AssembleEntry-8            4643892               259 ns/op             208 B/op          5 allocs/op
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_Iteration-8               20307603                59.9 ns/op            16 B/op          1 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Marshal_Map3StrInt-8               1346115               913 ns/op             544 B/op          7 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Marshal_Map3StrInt_CodecNull-8     4606304               256 ns/op             176 B/op          3 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Unmarshal_Map3StrInt-8              425662              2793 ns/op            1160 B/op         27 allocs/op
```

realgen, new, improved:

```
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_AssembleStandard-8         6138765               183 ns/op             129 B/op          3 allocs/op
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_AssembleEntry-8            7276795               176 ns/op             129 B/op          3 allocs/op
BenchmarkMapStrInt_3n_Iteration-8               19593212                67.2 ns/op            16 B/op          1 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Marshal_Map3StrInt-8               1309916               912 ns/op             544 B/op          7 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Marshal_Map3StrInt_CodecNull-8     4579935               257 ns/op             176 B/op          3 allocs/op
BenchmarkSpec_Unmarshal_Map3StrInt-8              465195              2599 ns/op            1080 B/op         25 allocs/op
```

So!  About 150% improvement on assembly between gen with fcb and our new-improved no-callback system.

And about 321% improvement in total now for codegen structs over the basicnode map.

That's the kind of ratio I was looking for :)

As with all of these measurements: these will also get much bigger on bigger corpuses.
Some of the improvements here are O(n) -> O(1), and some apply even more heartily in deeper trees, etc.
But it's telling that even on very small corpuses, the impact is already huge.

Still have a lot of uncertainty to resolve around nullable and optional
in general.  But writing that up elsewhere -- trying to treat it from
the spec angle without getting the implementation too mixed up in it.

Easier than previous commit message seemed to think.

Since we already have finishCallback functions in play in any scene
where maybes can also be in play, we can just make those responsible
for copying out a pointer from the child assembler to the parent value.
That makes the child assembler able to create a new value late in
its lifecycle and still expect it can land in a proper home.

Tests needed badly; this is *oodles* of edge cases.
Unrelated fix needed first.  (Might make that elsewhere and rebase
this to include that, to reduce the carnage ever so slightly.)

Fix many issues with maybes; adjunct config for if maybe is implemented using a pointer; attempt the finishCallback system for reusable child assemblers.

This... almost appears to be on a dang nice track.

Except one fairly critical thing.  It doesn't work correctly if your
maybe IS implemented as containing a pointer.

Because that pointer starts life as nil in the parent structure.

And that's hard to fix.

We can't have a pointer to a pointer in the assembler;
that'd cause the type bifructation we've been trying to avoid.
(We can give up and do that of course; it would be correct.
Just... more code and larger final assembly size.
And if we did this, a lot of this diff would be rewritten.)

We could have the parent structure allocate a blank of the field,
and put a pointer to it in the maybe and also in the child assembler.
Except... this is a wasted allocation if it turns out to be null.

Rock and hard place detected in a paired configuration.
Might have to back out of this approach entirely.  Not sure.

This cleans up a lot of stuff and reduces the amount of boilerplate
content that's just generating monomorphizing error method stubs.

The nodeGenerator mixins now also use the node mixins.  I don't know
why I failed to do that from the start; I certainly meant to.
It results in shorter generated code, and the compiler turns it into
identical assembly.

I *think* the notes on Maybes are now oscillating increasingly closely
around a consistent centroid.  But getting here has been a one heck of
a noodle-scratcher.

In research: I found that there are more low-cost ways to switch which
methods are available to call on a value than I thought.  Also, these
techniques work even for methods of the same name.  This is going to
improve some code in NodeAssemblers significantly -- there are several
situations where this will let us reuse existing pieces of memory
instead of needing to allocate new ones; even the basicnode package
now already needs updates to improve this.  It's also going to make
returning representation nodes from our typed nodes *significantly*
easier and and lower in performance costs.  (Before finding methodsets
are in fact so feasible, I was afraid this was going to require our
typed nodes to embed yet another small struct with a pointer back to
themselves so we can have amortized availability of value that contains
the representation's logic for the Node interface... which while it
certainly would've worked, would've definitely made me sigh deeply.)
Quite exciting for several reasons; only wish I'd noticed this earlier.

Also in research: I found a novel way to make it (I believe) impossible
to create zero values of a type, whilst also making a symbol available
for it in other packages, so that we can do type assertions, etc,
with that symbol.  This is neat.  We're gonna use this to make sure
that types in your schema package can never be created without passing
through any validation logic that the user applies.

In codegen: lots of files disappear.  I'm doing a tabula rasa workflow.
(A bunch of the old files stick around in my working directory, and
are being... "inspirational"... but everything is getting whitelisted
before any of it ports over to the new commits.  This is an effective
way to force myself to do things like naming consistency re-checks
across the board.  And there's *very* little that's getting zero change
since the changes to pointer strategy and assembler interface are so
sweeping, so... there's very little reason *not* to tabula rasa.)

Strings are reimplemented already.  *With* representations.

Most of the codegen interfaces stay roughly the same so far.
I've exported more things this time around.

Lots of "mixins" based on lessons learned in the prior joust.
(Also a bunch of those kind-based rejections look *much* nicer now,
since we also made those standard across the other node packages.)

Some parts of the symbol munging still up in the air a bit.
I think I'm going to go for getting all the infrastructure in place
for allowing symbol-rename adjunct configuration this time.
(I doubt I'll wire it all the way up to real usable configuration yet,
but it'll be nice to get as many of the interventions as possible into
topologically the right places to minimize future effort required.)

There's a HACKME_wip.md file which contains some other notes on
priorities/goals/lessoned-learned-now-being-applied in this rewrite
which may contain some information about what's changing at a higher
level than trying to track the diffs.  (But, caveat: I'm not really
writing it for an audience; more my own tracking.  So, it comes with
no guarantee it will make sense or be useful.)