From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-13 04:03:01
On Nov 12, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> Wrap up
> I guess it should be pretty obvious that I believe that
> a) The applicability and utility of a save/load binary optimization
> are narrow than claimed.
I gave four concrete examples of which three have already been
implemented. Can you please substantiate your claim that it is
narrower than claimed.
> b) The claims of performance improvement are suspect.
I gave a benchmark code and results. What is suspect about it? Do you
get different results on other machines? Please substantiate the claim.
> c) This implementation doesn't address all the issues that
> need to be addressed for something like this.
Actually it does, as I showed in my reply to your observations.
> d) Such an idea could be implemented in a much simpler,
> more transparent, robust, and efficient manner.
As I also argued in my reply to your proposal, this will not work
because of intrusiveness. Also, why should your approach (besides the
intrusiveness problems) be more efficient???
> e) Such "special" implementation features are easily
> accommodated by the current library by extension. There
> is no need to change any of the core library implementation
> or interface.
The one problem with the core library is that the core library
implements the serialization of C-style arrays by a for-loop over the
elements. If you would separate this from the core library, then only
a small change in this file would be needed.
> Finally, I have to comment on the way this has been proposed.
> Checking a diverse group into the CVS system on a separate branch
> is not convenient for most people. This would better be
> a zip file uploaded to the vault. It should also include
> some sort of document outlining what its intended to do
> and how it does it. Had this been done, its likely that
> many more people would have had a look at it and been
> able to commment. I'm sure the issues i've noted above
> would be apparent to a lot of people and I wouldn't have
> had to spend a few hours preparing this critique.
I actually submitted the diffs to the list. I did this instead of a
tarball of the entire archive since it is smaller and the changes are
easier to see. In the submission I also outlined what was changed and
I refuse to reply to personal and unfounded polemic attacks.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk