2011/4/14 Meikel Brandmeyer <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > On 14 Apr., 11:35, Laurent PETIT <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't understand either. >> Anyway, if there is no flaw in the tests, this could end as a good >> example of where premature optimization (of CPU at least) via recur >> does not get the expected result ! > > Always prove your assumptions. But I'm still suspicious of a test > flaw. I use criterium to ensure that at least someone had some > (hopefully) clever ideas about this micro-benchmarking stuff in the > light of JIT and such (dead code elimination, warm-up runs, etc.). But > still there are a lot of opportunities for things to go wrong or be > mis-interpreted. > > Maybe the results are correct, maybe not. Either way I'd like to > understand why they are the way they are. >
Yes, we'll have to wait for more hard-core clojurers than the two of us to explain either where the flaw is, either the explanation to this ! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
