Ken Hornstein wrote:
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.