2 ms·

> Honestly I don't care what people do. You can't have it both ways. You clearly care to some extent. Whatever though. Clearly we disagree on how to approach t

> Honestly I don't care what people do. You can't have it both ways. You clearly care to some extent. Whatever though. Clearly we disagree on how to approach this stuff. I realize you probably don't intend this, but you really come off as belittling others for not being as smart as you. It's not cool. > Conversely, AC just develops a huge 'root cloud' when the pattern sets get big - increasingly, you're always in a prefix of something. It tends to benchmark well (sorta, kinda) especially if you feed it input that doesn't look much like what you're trying to match. You then just bounce around a couple shallow states that get to be resident in L1 and you look pretty smart. The OP constructed a benchmark from exactly the task they are trying to do and did algorithm development until they got a better result. That seems like exactly the right way to approach this. Not everyone is in a position to make an extra few hundred thousand dollars by switching from AC to Vomitsauce. That's all I'm trying to do too. It's going to take a _long_ time for the field to collectively catch up to Hyperscan. It'll take me years, if I keep on my current path.

glangdale 8y ago
I think the field should pass Hyperscan, not catch up to it. There are a number of things about HS that I'm increasingly uneasy about. As for the rest I'm done. I don't think I can adequately explain my irritation at the general state of discourse about the things I worked on for 12+ years without coming off in all sorts of ways I don't really intend. Suffice to say I've seen things you people wouldn't believe, strawmen comparison implementations on fire off the shoulder of Orion, etc. :-) I will try to write up my new string matcher at some point, in a less convoluted context than Hyperscan. HS, from sheer complexity, makes almost all algorithms more or less undiscoverable - it's hard to avoid having some busy-body subsystem jump in front of the simple demo you're trying to do.
- burntsushi 8y ago
  > I think the field should pass Hyperscan, not catch up to it. There are a number of things about HS that I'm increasingly uneasy about. Right. I meant it as a short-hand way of saying, "it will take a while for the field to catch up to the battle tested knowledge you've accumulated, of which, some is expressed inside Hyperscan." :-)

glangdale 8y ago

I think the field should pass Hyperscan, not catch up to it. There are a number of things about HS that I'm increasingly uneasy about. As for the rest I'm done. I don't think I can adequately explain my irritation at the general state of discourse about the things I worked on for 12+ years without coming off in all sorts of ways I don't really intend. Suffice to say I've seen things you people wouldn't believe, strawmen comparison implementations on fire off the shoulder of Orion, etc. :-) I will try to write up my new string matcher at some point, in a less convoluted context than Hyperscan. HS, from sheer complexity, makes almost all algorithms more or less undiscoverable - it's hard to avoid having some busy-body subsystem jump in front of the simple demo you're trying to do.

burntsushi 8y ago
> I think the field should pass Hyperscan, not catch up to it. There are a number of things about HS that I'm increasingly uneasy about. Right. I meant it as a short-hand way of saying, "it will take a while for the field to catch up to the battle tested knowledge you've accumulated, of which, some is expressed inside Hyperscan." :-)