Yes I agree there's a need for speed. I think ZnTimestamp is a valuable addition.
And maybe the primitive that returns ms since epoch and offset gets adopted so DateAndTime can be nearly as fast. On Jun 22, 2012, at 2:51 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22 Jun 2012, at 22:23, Paul DeBruicker wrote: > >> On 06/22/2012 01:11 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>>>> Here are some benchmarks: >>>>> >>>>> [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ ZTimestamp now ] ] bench '1,910 per second.' >>>>> [ 1000 timesRepeat: [ DateAndTime now ] ] bench '253 per second.' >>> what? 253 per second? what it doing there? >>> >> >> 253 iterations of 1000 timesRepeat:[DateAndTime now] per second. >> >> So ~253,000 iterations of DateAndTime now per second. >> >> [DateAndTime now] bench > > Yes, depending on the use case one can discuss about the absolute numbers. > > But consider a LRU style cache where on each operation the timestamp is > updated to now, you'll want speed, right ? > > Sven
