On 3/27/12 1:57 AM, James Blewitt wrote:
Great!
Thanks for the support everyone. What a performance jump between v2.054
and v2.058!
James
Hi James -- you may want to link this discussion from your blog.
Cheers,
Andrei
Great!
Thanks for the support everyone. What a performance jump between
v2.054 and v2.058!
James
On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 22:05:34 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
My unofficial results comparing 2.056 to 2.058 on 64 bits:
shakespeare.txt, 2.056 -> 1868 msecs
shakespeare.txt, 2.058 -> 632 msecs
data.csv, 2.056 -> 51953 msecs
data.csv, 2.058 -> 1329 msecs
That last line is pretty impressive. :
On 27 March 2012 11:05, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> My unofficial results comparing 2.056 to 2.058 on 64 bits:
>
> shakespeare.txt, 2.056 -> 1868 msecs
> shakespeare.txt, 2.058 -> 632 msecs
>
> data.csv, 2.056 -> 51953 msecs
> data.csv, 2.058 -> 1329 msecs
>
> That last line is pretty impressive. :)
D
On 03/26/2012 02:41 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 27.03.2012 0:27, James Blewitt wrote:
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> Thanks once again for the interest in my problem. I have posted the
>> details and source code that recreates (at least for me) the poor
>> performance.
>> I didn't know how to post
On 27.03.2012 0:27, James Blewitt wrote:
Hello everybody,
Thanks once again for the interest in my problem. I have posted the
details and source code that recreates (at least for me) the poor
performance.
I didn't know how to post the code to the forum, so I posted it to my
blog instead (see pos
Hello everybody,
Thanks once again for the interest in my problem. I have posted
the details and source code that recreates (at least for me) the
poor performance.
I didn't know how to post the code to the forum, so I posted it
to my blog instead (see post update):
http://jblewitt.com/blog/
On 26.03.2012 20:00, Jay Norwood wrote:
On Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 16:31:40 UTC, James Blewitt wrote:
I'm currently trying to figure out what I'm doing differently in my
original program. At this point I am assuming that I have an error in
my code which causes the D program to do much more work
On Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 16:31:40 UTC, James Blewitt wrote:
I'm currently trying to figure out what I'm doing differently
in my original program. At this point I am assuming that I
have an error in my code which causes the D program to do much
more work that its Ruby counterpart (although I
Hello everyone,
I'm the author of the blog post.
First of all, thanks so much for the interest in my problem. I
had no idea that the D community was so active (a fact that
pleases me greatly).
A quick update. I've written a small benchmark based on my real
code and I'm now getting *signif
On 25.03.2012 4:26, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jklomm$2seb$1...@digitalmars.com...
Yea, I agree that's what it sounds like. I tried to post a response, but
I'm just getting this result (and yes, this is with JS enabled):
"Nick Sabalausky" wrote in message
news:jklomm$2seb$1...@digitalmars.com...
>
> Yea, I agree that's what it sounds like. I tried to post a response, but
> I'm just getting this result (and yes, this is with JS enabled):
>
>
> Asirra validation failed!
"Kapps" wrote in message
news:yudtvjsuhhimrhqai...@forum.dlang.org...
> On Saturday, 24 March 2012 at 23:06:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> This might be worth looking into. Dmitry?
>>
>> http://jblewitt.com/blog/?p=462
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> A difference of that amount is likely expecting som
On Saturday, 24 March 2012 at 23:06:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
This might be worth looking into. Dmitry?
http://jblewitt.com/blog/?p=462
Andrei
A difference of that amount is likely expecting something like
regex("Blah") to not have to create a new regex struct each time,
something
This might be worth looking into. Dmitry?
http://jblewitt.com/blog/?p=462
Andrei
15 matches
Mail list logo
