On Sep 29 2011, Alan Post wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Alan Post
alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote:
Will you show me this data for the current implementation?
The first implementation doesn't need to justify itself,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
I don't not have benchmarks for a reason: they would cost me too much
time to do right. Personally I don't believe too much in benchmarks
anyway. I believe in fast execution and source code
On Sep 29 2011, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
I don't not have benchmarks for a reason: they would cost me too much
time to do right. Personally I don't believe too much in benchmarks
anyway. I believe in fast execution and source code review.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2011 01:44 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
On Sep 29 2011, Alaric Snell-Pym wrote:
On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
I don't not have benchmarks for a reason: they would cost me too much
time to do right. Personally I
Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
If the supposed performance improvement can't be benchmarked, then
it's pointless, as nobody will actually benefit from it. Any case
where somebody can benefit from a performance improvement can be
turned into a benchmark that consists of running the code that is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/29/2011 04:51 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit:
If the supposed performance improvement can't be benchmarked, then
it's pointless, as nobody will actually benefit from it. Any case
where somebody can benefit from a
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote:
I don't have enough data to say that it matters in this case, but in
principle it surely does.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice,
they're different.
The problem here specifically is the lack
Will you show me this data for the current implementation?
-Alan
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:30:00AM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org
wrote:
I don't have enough data to say that it matters in this case, but in
principle it
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:09:19PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org
wrote:
Will you show me this data for the current implementation?
The first implementation doesn't need to justify itself,
just be working.
*nods*
How
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote:
How did irregex, which by account is slower, replace the existing
regex code?
I didn't make the call, but as I understand that was motivated
by portability concerns, simplifying the Chicken distribution,
and
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:33:41PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alan Post alanp...@sunflowerriver.org
wrote:
How did irregex, which by account is slower, replace the existing
regex code?
I didn't make the call, but as I understand that was motivated
by
On 28/09/11 11:33 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Alan Postalanp...@sunflowerriver.org wrote:
How did irregex, which by account is slower, replace the existing
regex code?
I didn't make the call, but as I understand that was motivated
by portability concerns,
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place.
IMHO the code is not more confusing to read this way and should
run better in case the C compiler is not smart enough.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place.
IMHO the code is not more confusing to read this
On Sep 27 2011, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
Maybe it's better no have it there at the first place.
IMHO the code is
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 09:21:15PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
On Sep 27 2011, Peter Bex wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 03:22:06PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
While I've been looking at the code I wondered if the C compiler
will fur sure pull that one test out of the for-loop.
16 matches
Mail list logo