Well... hypothetically speaking, a case might be made for special code
which evaluates -@- with a domain check and then ] -- but I guess we
are not seeing anything useful about that case yet.

And there's a small cost to special code, so we usually don't want it
doing things people should not use.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to