Well put, you two.  Exactly the same point I was trying to make, only to
get accused of spouting "baloney".


On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Peter Alexander <
peter.alexander...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 2 August 2013 at 17:16:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2013-08-02 15:44:13 +0000, Leandro Lucarella said:
>>> I'm not say is right or wrong for people to have this reflex of thinking
>>> about multipliers, I'm just saying if you care about transmitting the
>>> message as clear as you can, is better to use numbers everybody can
>>> intuitively think about.
>>> And this is in reply to Andrei too. I understand your POV, but if your
>>> main goal is communication (instead of education about side topics),
>>> I think is better to stick with numbers and language that minimizes
>>> confusion and misinterpretations.
>>> Just a humble opinion of yours truly.
>> Fair enough. So what would have been a better way to convey the
>> quantitative improvement?
> Not to speak on Leandro's behalf, but I think the obvious answer is
> "Reduced compile times by 43%".
> It's much more useful to express it that way because it's easier to apply.
> Say I have a program that takes 100 seconds to compile. Knowing that the
> compilation time is reduced by 43% makes it easy to see that my program
> will now take 57 seconds. Knowing that compilation is 75% faster doesn't
> help much at all - I have to get out a calculator and divide by 1.75.
> It's always better to use a measure that is linear with what you care
> about. Here, most people care about how long their programs take to
> compile, not how many programs they can compile per second.

Reply via email to