[Rock-dev] Questions Regarding Typelib

[Sylvain Joyeux]

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Janosch Machowinski <
Janosch.Machowinski at dfki.de> wrote:

>  Seriously, got to hell.
>
Sure, will do ...


> You know what s the problem with you, whenever one is motivated,
> to fix a problem with rock and it not done the way you think it is the
> best, you start bashing around. Btw, a correct response would be, great,
> you looked into it and made it faster, go on.
>
Hey. You've not *yet* made it faster. You will have made it faster once
you've provided the same level of functionality than the current
application. Which means developing a Ruby binding, adapting pocolog and --
if it ends up this way -- adapting the code that uses pocolog. Half an hour
profiling pocolog showed me quite a lot that can be optimized there with
small, non-intrusive patches.

I am trying to find out whether you *are* wasting your time or not. That's
what benchmarking and profiling is about. At this point, the right answer
would have been "oups, weird that you don't get the same numbers than I do
at all, let's look deeper", not some misplaced sense of pride. For what it
is worth, you can waste your time for all I care. If you end up not
improving the situation, *I* won't have lost anything and if you do I gain
something. Win-win for me.

Now, I'd very much like to be proven wrong (yay, faster replay !). I just
wonder why you take somebody that tells you "hey, I've measured pocolog
performance and it is not as bad as you claim it to be" for a personal
attack. Look at the "test" you sent and tell me the many things that are
wrong with it. There are subtle issues with benchmarking in general, but in
this case subtelty is not really the main problem.

Sylvain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.dfki.de/pipermail/rock-dev/attachments/20140609/2f1cdab8/attachment-0001.htm