Daniel Carrera wrote:
Randomthots wrote:
This is interesting: why do you think the limit is intrinsic in the
*format*, rather than a bug in the *current* version of OO.o (=
*one* of
the many applications that could and will support ODF)? Please explain
Daniel Carrera and I went round and round about this just recently.
Yes, I remember you constructed a strawman and an irrelevant comparison.
You tried to claim that making the tags smaller would speed up the
application and supported your claim using CSV files :P
Actually, I didn't make an assertion originally. I asked a question. You
proceeded to be somewhat of an ass about it, and instead of answering
and explaining, you ridiculed my question and then made unsubstantiated
assertions of your own.
Daniel just dismisses it with hand-waving about XML parsing being
inefficient.
No actually. If you are going to make the silly claim that the *size* of
the XML *tag* is a bottle neck, the burden is on you to prove that
assertion.
That's the part where you turn into an ass. If you call me silly, I will
call you an ass...
I proceeded to explain that there were several possible
explanations for the performance problems which seemed a lot more likely
than the size of the XML tag.
But you didn't explain anything at all.
Parsing XML was one example.
But *why* is XML slow to parse? Because it's in plaintext? Because it's
verbose? Because the structure doesn't map well to the internal DOM?
Why? Answer that question and I will have learned something.
Others
included the design of the application,
No comment.
and the ZIP/UNZIP process.
Which we agree probably contributes a few seconds to the process.
I suspect that, if nothing else, the sheer size of XML files has an
impact with regards to memory usage.
But you present no evidence to support your claim.
My evidence was all the disc thrashing I observed while FC3 choked on
the problem. BTW, Windows thrashed the disc as well, but at least it
didn't become completely useless in the meantime.
On the other hand, I
provided a calculation. I started with the speed of a typical IDE drive,
calculated the size decrease for a reasonably standard 50-page document
removing the XML tags in question, and showed that at most you could
expect a 0.14s speed increase. And you feel this was hand-wavy? Please
show me a less "hand-wavy" calculation to support your claim that the
size of the XML tag is a limiting factor.
You produced a calculation based on assumptions that may or may not hold
true or even be relevant. I never claimed that the speed problem was
related to the transfer of the file from the disc.
Fact is, I don't know why parsing that file is so slow, but I don't get
the impression that you do either. At least, your "explanation" didn't
clear the matter up for me. And I'm certainly not asserting that the MS
XML format is superior.
You insulted my intelligence and got my back up for absolutely no reason.
Same to you.
--
Rod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
