On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:51:28 -0400, Mike Meyer
<mwm-keyword-googlegroups.620...@mired.org> wrote:
This looks nice, but doesn't work with 1.1 :-(. Do you know the last
commit that did?
I'm not sure that I would be too confident on the correctness of any
version that ran on 1.1.
Better yet, can I talk you into posting a 1.1 jar file to the
downloads area, maybe along with a 1.2 RC, so users who aren't
comfortable with the Java infrastructure
(http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/papers/simple-clojure.html) can play
along?
I would need to take the time to backport the lib from its existing
state. As far as I remember there is only very light defrecord usage to
contend with. I'm afraid it is not high priority for me at the moment.
I would also wonder how significant the loop overhead is, especially for
comparing implementations of the same function, which would then have
similar loop overhead. It is interesting to time Thread/sleep calls with
different sleep periods (not that sleep is going to be accurate itself,
but a regression of loop count versus Criterium's measured time and the
sleep time might be interesting).
Another issue with timing fast, simple functions is that jit can optimise
a calculation to a constant if it is simple enough.
My major concern with Criterium would rather be on the percentage garbage
collection time reported. There still needs to be work done on removing
the allocation of result structures from the body of the timed results. I
would expect that to have a bigger impact than the loop overhead.
Hugo
--
Hugo Duncan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
