3 ms·
> if your application was freezing for 78 seconds waiting for a screen redraw 78 seconds was the compile time. The runtimes were almost identical: 0.45 second
by jonahx 8y ago
> if your application was freezing for 78 seconds waiting for a screen redraw
78 seconds was the compile time. The runtimes were almost identical: 0.45 seconds to run the entire test suite in the fastest case vs 1.3 in the slowest.
- EmbarrassedFuel 8y agoThe slowest is three times slower than the fastest! That’s not almost identical at all, and could easily be the difference between a useable interface and an unbearable one...
- jonahx 8y agoIt could be. And when I have evidence that user experience is affected, I'll care about the difference. But what if it's 1ms vs 3ms? Or 3ms vs 9ms? And the 9ms time is a much more expressive, productive, high-level language? I'm not going to care about the difference just because "omg one number is 3x another number!?!"
- sharpneli 8y agoFor an soft realtime application like game that’s the difference between 10fps and 30fps. Or 30 and 90. Basically total failure or success.
- jonahx 8y agoI was referring to response time in a GUI app -- 9ms is undetectable. Again, if you have a reason the speed matters, then it matters. The specific numbers here are not relevant to my argument, which boils down to: being "slow", in and of itself, is meaningless.
- robocat 8y ago0.45 vs 1.3 is mentioned as being almost irrelevant in the article - from article: “Another interesting observation is that it makes no difference what hardware you use to run it. If the solution is fast, it’ll be fast on a notebook as well as on a beefed-up workstation-class desktop. Sure, it might be twice or thrice slower, but it’ll be a difference between 10ms and 30ms.” All up the article starts with reasonable discussion about how different solutions can have more than 6 orders of magnitude time difference, then it segues irrelevantly to a complaint about electron.