On 18/04/2004, at 9:42, "Ken Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you haven't brought this up on the RealBasic list, you probably should to
be fair... we've had a lot of chances to provide optimized routines; I'm
assuming the RealBasic routine you use is one you developed... someone on
the RB list may have a faster algorithm.
Just looking for fairness in the comparison...
Ken
True enough and I welcome someone else having some fun with it but I think the point now is that it does not matter if our solutions are beaten. The perspective of the original problem was 15 seconds in the current application reducing to 8 (RR) or 1 (RB). Had we achieved, say, three seconds or better then I would have regarded the speed question as no longer material to the product decision and I suspect RG would take a stronger position than that. If 800 milliseconds (~ 20x faster than SC) is beaten to a pulp at, say, 200mS in an optimised RB strategy then who cares? Remember that writing a C++ external was explicitly excluded from the options in the speed test, so speed is not in fact the be- and end-all.
regards David
Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
