3 ms·
If the article's point was that better alternatives exist, it should have made that point by mentioning those better alternatives and ideally benchmarking them
by tom_mellior 7y ago
If the article's point was that better alternatives exist, it should have made that point by mentioning those better alternatives and ideally benchmarking them as well.
I agree with others that this particular article comes across as very lazy and not up to Lemire's usual standard.
- gpderetta 7y agoThat's not the point of the article. The point of the article is that many programs are in fact CPU bound, contrary to the often repeated claims and you do actually need to do optimization work to saturate your IO; even in lanuages considered fast, like c++ and java, the straightforward implementation is often suboptimal.
- tom_mellior 7y agoAgreed. Though if the author really has existing materials about faster alternatives, it's still strange not to mention them. The article is strictly speaking about one way of doing I/O (or rather, an abstraction often involved in I/O), but the author should know that many will read it as saying "all I/O in Java is always slow".