| 1 |
On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:01:40 +0100 Ranjit Singh wrote: |
| 2 |
> > If you really think that EAPI as an extension has anything to do |
| 3 |
> > with performance |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> You mentioned performance a few times in that lovely thread when it |
| 6 |
> got shot down, I believe in the context of metadata generation: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> "Performance hit" (when discussing an alternative) [1] |
| 9 |
> "The GLEP is not about performance, but any solution that forces the |
| 10 |
> introduction of a slowdown of more than, say, 20%, isn't viable." [2] |
| 11 |
> "It's several more directory reads. This is a measurable performance |
| 12 |
> hit" [3] |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Are you now saying performance doesn't matter? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Please re-read what I said. EAPI as an extension has nothing to do with |
| 17 |
performance. This does not mean that an alternative that has |
| 18 |
significant performance implications is not a problem. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'll explain it for you in much simpler terms: equipping a car with a |
| 21 |
new kind of engine and fuel system that is much safer in the case of an |
| 22 |
accident is a good thing, but not if it also reduces the car's top |
| 23 |
speed to 30mph. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives