Talk:Anagrams/Deranged anagrams: Difference between revisions
(→Cross-language performance comparisons: Set-up) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Cross-language performance comparisons== |
==Cross-language performance comparisons== |
||
+1 on Ledrugs deletions. Anothers persons comparison could be wildly different. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
+1 on Ledrugs deletions. Anothers persons comparison could be wildly different. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
User [[user:79.11.51.165]] commented: |
|||
:''"qualitative performance comparisons done on the same PC are probably OK on Rosettacode"'' |
|||
when removing the comment on a comparison between two examples in the same language, D. Too many things have to be set-up and monitored as equivalent, as well as reported as equivalent for all but the fuzziest of reports on relative performance between examples in the same language to be reported, as otherwise their would need to be a wealth of qualifying information. In general, as you can see, there is very little timing information on RC, but the odd comment along the lines of "This second D example consistantly ran faster than the other" ''is'' usually left, but even this implies things about the test environment, as well as the code itself, as who is likely to re-run to confirm fuzzy timings when code edits are made, and such a comment might assume a particular compiler version. If you start to add all that extra context explicitely you then don't know when to stop... (I shall stop here howev<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:11, 27 September 2011
Cross-language performance comparisons
+1 on Ledrugs deletions. Anothers persons comparison could be wildly different. --Paddy3118 04:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
User user:79.11.51.165 commented:
- "qualitative performance comparisons done on the same PC are probably OK on Rosettacode"
when removing the comment on a comparison between two examples in the same language, D. Too many things have to be set-up and monitored as equivalent, as well as reported as equivalent for all but the fuzziest of reports on relative performance between examples in the same language to be reported, as otherwise their would need to be a wealth of qualifying information. In general, as you can see, there is very little timing information on RC, but the odd comment along the lines of "This second D example consistantly ran faster than the other" is usually left, but even this implies things about the test environment, as well as the code itself, as who is likely to re-run to confirm fuzzy timings when code edits are made, and such a comment might assume a particular compiler version. If you start to add all that extra context explicitely you then don't know when to stop... (I shall stop here howev
--Paddy3118 05:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)