4 ms·

The methods he improved the perf of were in string, array, and struct. I think that counts as "globally improves performance", there are very few non-trivial me

• jackowayed 17y ago
  but they won't improve performance as much. AND the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case, and average is only 8%. So basically, if your program does nothing but call those methods in such a way that it satisfies the best case improvement, it just got 63% faster at doing nothing. If your program does nothing but call those methods with the average case, it just got 8% faster at doing nothing. If your program uses anything else, it's probably only faster by a small fraction of that 8%.
  • WesleyJohnson 17y ago
    >..the 63% figure was very misleading anyway since that's the best case... Which is exactly what I took "up to 63%" to mean. I don't see that as misleading. If a drug administration company was listing off the side effects of a new over-the-counter drug and mentioned fatality rates we're on average, 2%, but failed to mention that the worst-case scenarios (where the patients were Hispanic females over the age 35) had a 80% fatality rate, would you also consider that misleading? Of course you would. So why is citing the extremes of a positive considered misleading, while citing extremes of a negative is almost expected?
• Hexstream 17y ago
  That's still a very long shot from "[Improving] Ruby 1.9 Performance By Up To 63%", which sounds like a global average improvement of 63% for all Ruby 1.9 programs...