From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-21 19:59:20
Andreas Huber wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>>>> That's interesting. I was under the impression that exactly such a
>>>>> list of alternate implementation techniques would not satisfy you,
>>>>> because it would in no way show that the design I chose is the
>>>>> best performance-wise.
>>>> Why not? That would be the main point.
>>> I don't understand. A list of alternate techniques would show that
>>> none of these techniques satisfies the requirements but it doesn't
>>> say anything why the current FSM implementation performs worse than
>>> any of these techniques.
>> You don't just list the techniques. You explain them and summarize
>> their performance characteristics.
> That's what I meant. This will still not show how "good" the current
> design is. It will only show that the current design satisfies
> requirements that other designs don't and explain the techniques (and
> performance characteristics) I have chosen to satisfy the
> requirements. Whether those techniques are the best performance-wise
> is a completely different matter.
I don't understand the destinction you're trying to make.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk