3 ms·
Intellectual dishonesty is certainly wrong in a deep way. Several of us here obviously have our jaws dropping thinking: "What!? 34 times slower when typically
by martinced 14y ago
Intellectual dishonesty is certainly wrong in a deep way.
Several of us here obviously have our jaws dropping thinking: "What!? 34 times slower when typically perfs are quit ok, what is going on here?!"
Where do you put the limit? You realize that your "counter argument" makes no sense.
918 times slower? Would that be enough?
What about 8734 times slower?
Where do you draw the line?
Why do you keep insisting saying that "34 times slower" is "nothing to see here, move along"?
What about 1923408130294870918234 times slower? Would that be enough for you to consider something may be wrong?
- igouy 14y ago>>"What!? 34 times slower when typically perfs are quit ok, what is going on here?!"<< "perfs" to do what exactly are "quit ok"? Please show us your regex processing Erlang program and your time measurements. --- fyi exactly the same C program can 3,600 times longer using a C interpreter than when using GCC. http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test=nbody&lang=cint&id=1#measurements http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32/program.php?test...