Is 'tool' plus flat subcollections really out? I am not really keen on 'tuning', plus I see a chance to thin out the collection top-level tree here.
On Jul 11, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > I like coaching for the (formerly known as) performance report tool. A lot! > > I was suggesting "tuning" for the collection that would house the > future visualizer and the performance coach and hopefully eventually a > memory profiler. (And maybe Eli's profiler could move in there someday > too.) > > Robby > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> On Jul 11, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>> Would "tuning" work? >> >> They were correct, and you conjectured correctly. We conflated >> 'optimization' with 'performance gains.' As everyone knows who has been >> around real compilers and their writers, some 'optimizations' are >> 'pessimizations' as Keith used to call them. And of course even when >> 'optimizations' reduce the running time and/or the space consumption, they >> aren't _optimizations_ as John Dennis used to remind us. There is a similar >> conflation that additional related work pointed out. People tend to confuse >> 'analysis results' with 'can do optimization'. This is certainly not true >> for in-lining in Racket and if you know of more those optimizations, I'd >> love to hear about them. >> >> 'Tuning' would work but we decided that 'coaching' was a good term for what >> was going on from the programmer's perspective. And the word isn't used >> anywhere else in CS as far as I know, while other terms (including 'tuning') >> are used and may have a different connotation. >> _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
