Hi,
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Charles Kerr <[email protected]> wrote: > (1) When libev compares itself to libevent, it should use reasonably > up-to-date information. If libevent2 is better than libevent1, as it > seems to be, then continuing to omit libevent2 /is/ misleading, > whether intentional or not. I'm sorry, but while I can see your point that libevent2 is much better than libevent and therefore could be on par with libev, and that marketing and real quotes sometimes don't add up, you are wrong about the benchmark page: they clearly states that this is a comparison between libev and libevent, not libevent2. You, as a software developer, would prefer a comparison between the latest versions of each, and I agree that it would be nice to have, but neither is that a requirement for the project, like something that it must do, nor is the current benchmark wrong. You seem to be evaluating both to make a decision for your software project. I think you are in a perfect condition to write a article describing your own comparison between libev and libevent2. (May I suggest that you use the same layout as the current libev benchmark?). After you publish your own results, its up to Marc to link (or not) to your benchmark from the libev page. If doesn't agree with your methodology or with your results, its up to him to do the work himself. Bye, -- Pedro Melo http://www.simplicidade.org/ xmpp:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ libev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
