Ken Hornstein wrote:
you said:

And the programs I tried worked fine. Running best scan time
for 200K messages, scan+gc takes 13.5 seconds while the
regular scan 7.4 seconds.

To me a performance penalty of 50% is not worth it, but I'd be willing
to hear from others.

the various design choices made in MH and in many cases still present in NMH were all performance-related. consider the old "MATCHC" logic as an example, or the reuse of buffers today vs freeing and re-allocating.

if we didn't care about performance, we'll get more benefits overall from switching to python or perl than we will from using C-based GC.

P Vixie


Reply via email to