Premature optimization is the root of all evil
Donald Knuth
>Just a small idea: Let teach JIT to purge this code unless special
option
>is ON
+1
I believe a computer should adapt to my way of thinking. I prefer a
simple and readable code to an efficient one since the former one saves
the time of my life, why the latter one saves some electricity.
With best regards,
Alexei Fedotov,
Intel Java & XML Engineering
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mikhail Fursov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:56 PM
>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [classlib] Preprocessor (was Re: [classlib][rmi] Code
smell -
>Thread.sleep() in ActivationGroup method)
>
>On 10/29/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1) The Logging Debate That Won't Die - we don't want to encumber our
>> "production" code with logging or even with runtime enablement checks
>> for logging i.e.
>>
>> if (logging.isDebugEnabled())
>>
>> but it's clear that some people still want to use it for debugging.
>
>
>Just a small idea: Let teach JIT to purge this code unless special
option
>is ON
>? Doing this we solve performance issue at least .
>
>If we did this, I assume that our build becomes a two step process,
>> first pre-process the code to create separate "buildable source",
which
>> would go into source jars and such for debugging purposes. Then our
>> current javac/jar process.
>>
>> I'd also like to be able to work in an IDE with the pre-proc stuff
>> invisible if possible...
>
>
>This is the main problem. Backporting of your changes from the
"buildable
>source" to the "source with preprocessor" could have more overhead then
>support of a separate branch for different Java version.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mikhail Fursov
