1 |
On 01/27/2014 11:57 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:54:28 +0100, hasufell wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>>>> If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis |
5 |
>>>> is worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete |
6 |
>>>> there. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> That makes no sense at all. Paludis is written in a different |
9 |
>>> language using different algorithms. It's not about the amount of |
10 |
>>> work it does so much as how efficiently it does it. |
11 |
> |
12 |
>> That's exactly what I was saying. I was talking about speed, not |
13 |
>> efficiency. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> But the efficiency of the algorithm, and the language, affects the speed. |
16 |
> You can't presume "it does more, therefore it takes longer" if the two |
17 |
> programs do things in very different ways. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
For people who are used to portage, paludis will be _slower_ in total, |
22 |
although the dependency calculation will be more accurate. |