| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:42:30 +0100
|
| 5 |
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> I don't see any objective measurements of performace in GLEP 55 |
| 7 |
> either. perhaps you could point me to a version and pargraph in GLEP |
| 8 |
> that details these benchmarks ? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It's not a question of benchmarks. It's a question of being slower by
|
| 11 |
design. Allow me to explain:
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If GLEP 55 were to include benchmarks, they would be dismissed as "well
|
| 14 |
we can make that code faster", which would be missing the point -- that
|
| 15 |
it's a design penalty regardless of implementation.
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- --
|
| 18 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 19 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 20 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkoe6+kACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGqbwCg5Ye1CC5V+WjQ1nArN/eM1hpR
|
| 23 |
3qwAniS95KnP7FBbnbUiEVJnO5LLIXgF
|
| 24 |
=FFMi
|
| 25 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives