[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]

![matej_cerny Avatar](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:24/cr:twitter::298785730.png) Matej Cerny [@matej_cerny](/creator/twitter/matej_cerny) on x XXX followers
Created: 2025-07-24 08:13:07 UTC

The decision not to specialize `Some` comes down to a simple cost-benefit analysis.
The Cost
 * Increased JAR Size: Specialization generates a lot of extra bytecode. For a class as fundamental and widely used as `Some`, creating specialized versions for all X primitive types would significantly bloat the standard library JAR file (scala-library.jar).
 * Longer Compilation: More code means the compiler has more work to do, increasing compilation times for the library and potentially for user projects.

The (Minimal) Benefit
 * One-Time Boxing Cost: The main benefit would be avoiding boxing the single value held within the `Some`. For example, in Some(42), the primitive `42` is boxed into an `Integer` object. However, this boxing happens only once, at the moment the `Some` is created.
 * No "Hot Loop" Problem: The real performance benefits of specialization are seen in collections and functions that operate in "hot loops." For instance, when you map over a `List[Int]`, the boxing/unboxing can happen for every single element, which adds up quickly. With `Some`, you typically create it, and then you might unwrap it once. The overhead is not repeated in a tight loop, making the performance gain from specialization marginal.


XXX engagements

![Engagements Line Chart](https://lunarcrush.com/gi/w:600/p:tweet::1948295366568276061/c:line.svg)

**Related Topics**
[specialized](/topic/specialized)

[Post Link](https://x.com/matej_cerny/status/1948295366568276061)