2 ms·
This is not interesting. If you read the comments you'll see people complaining that it compared an O(N^2) string append method to an O(N) disk append method.
by dalke 12y ago
This is not interesting. If you read the comments you'll see people complaining that it compared an O(N^2) string append method to an O(N) disk append method.
Plus, the link to the research PDF in the Slashdot article is now broken. It should be http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02678 http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02678 "When In-Memory Computing is Slower than Heavy Disk Usage".
That page comments "This paper has been withdrawn by the authors for personal reasons. No further revisions"
- tosh 12y agoThe I found the discussion/comments to be the interesting thing.
- dalke 12y agoSince the paper was withdrawn and the link to the PDF is broken, you have no way to verify that the comments are correct, nor any way to learn to identify a poorly written paper. This removes almost everything which I might see as 'interesting.' Putting that aside, it's a duplicate post. Two weeks previous was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9265226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9265226 with exactly the same title. The comments at the ITWorld article then are equally dismissive the paper, with essentially the same comments as /. The two comments made then here at HN are all one needs to know about the paper. This is not something that "good hackers would find interesting", which is the first requirement of the submission guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html because it's impossible to be a good hacker without knowing this introductory level material.