realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Performance and faster idioms

To: REALbasic NUG <realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: Performance and faster idioms
From: Ronald Vogelaar <enter at rovosoft dot com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:37:18 +0100
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <20050228210133 dot DCDB7769625 at lists dot realsoftware dot com> <b1bb14210eba2a3e4e9f1e7989481456 at elfdata dot com> <e1b332b5736c36a1c15a2c804bcf5413 at elfdata dot com>
Theodore H.Smith wrote:



On 28 Feb 2005, at 21:22, Theodore H. Smith wrote:

Faster than countfields? I'd actually doubt it myself, to be honest. I'll probably test this at somepoint, however. Just to make sure. It may be that this result you got only applies in certain cases.


Just to make it clear, the reason I doubt that mine is 100x faster, is because countfields doesn't have much room to go wrong. I mean, a simple byte counting loop is hard to beat, and easy to code.

Well, the numbers don't lie.


I've got a byte counter in ElfDataCharSet.Count, although that actually tests for anything in a certain charset not just one byte.

Also, even lets say mine were 100x faster (Which is possible if RS didn't code theirs efficiently), this is such an easy fix for RS, I wouldn't even really think it worth mentioning.

Gains which can disappear tomorrow are sandy ground to build a house on...

Speak for yourself. I want to sell my product today... ummm tomorrow.., okay next month.

Never mind.

Ronald Vogelaar
http://www.rovosoft.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>