Beyond wether these tests are useful or not, you should run "ts" with a left argument, as a single run which lasts only 0.1 seconds can be somewhat imprecise. ts's left argument n is the number of times to run the string of code, and its result will be the total time elapsed divided by n.
Cheers, Louis > On 2 Oct 2017, at 19:51, Erling Hellenäs <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all! > > If something is not interesting or important, a good general idea could be to > not spend forum time on lengthy discussions about it? > Normally, if I get spammed like this, I would assume that what I said WAS > important, and I'd repost it and write more about it. However, since this is > a proprietary mail list I will have to leave that to the readers. > > Cheers, > Erling >> On 2017-10-02 19:26, Don Guinn 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
