On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:18:20 +0100 Anselm R Garbe <garb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 February 2016 at 09:01, Mattias Andrée > <maand...@kth.se> wrote: > > Performance is not really something suckless > > concerns itself about. They favour solutions > > that are simpler to implement and maintain > > but asymptotically slower. But in the case of > > I have to object here. It is correct that performance is > not the primary concern of suckless, but that does not > mean that suckless doesn't care for performance > considerations or would accept slow software algorithms. > > Actually the truth is often the opposite, simple > solutions often prove to be faster(!) than their complex > counterparts, because intensely smart but complex > implementations often just catch up the computational > waste of the complexity itself in the first place. > > Looking at dwm vs gnome is a good starting point. The > latter one has fewer window management capabilities, but > consists of a software stack that is probably by a factor > of 1000 more complex in terms of LOC and hence a lot > slower (just talking about the window management of > Gnome). > > Of course the discussion about numeric algorithms is a > bit different, though still a simple implementation > should not imply bad performance. If you believe so, then > someone must have misguided you quite a bit. > > -Anselm > Yes, complex and asymptotically faster algorithms usually have an overhead that makes it them subpar for small input. What you can do is estimate which algorithm would be fastest.
pgpoigis2Kai3.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
