Detailed measurements are useful and meaningful if your application is performing badly. But general statements about poor performance in parts of an application that isn't used much is a waste of time.
@ vs. @: is a concern but blanket proclamations is wrong. Today @ performs better than @: most of the time, especially for primitives. But for defined verbs, depending on the design, there may be no performance gain and a lot of wasted memory. If you have an app with a performance problem then run a tool to find out where you're spending the time. J has such a tool, as do almost all programming languages. Now you know where to spend your time. And you may find out that the problem is not in J, but in your design. There is no argument that @ has much room for improvement. Which seems to be what your beef is about. So you're wasting your time and everybody else's time proving the obvious. On Oct 2, 2017 10:06 AM, "Erling Hellenäs" <[email protected]> wrote: > You are welcome to show us better measurements if you think these > measurements are very important and worthy of a lengthy discussion in the > forum. /Erling > > On 2017-10-02 17:53, Raul Miller wrote: > >> The null case here should be ] >> >> (-@- -: ]) v >> 1 >> >> Thanks, >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
