On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:48:28PM -0500, Luke Small wrote: > Crystal: You can prove that for random, repetitive, correct, database > record name generation using small upperbounds, the demonstrated 1/3-1/2 > runtime isn???t worth it for an upperbound like 26 - 92 in a business context > that fights for every last millisecond? > > Bring it. > > Prove the correctness of whatever algorithm you???re using while you???re at > it.
Luke, It's very bad etiquette to deliberately re-post a private, off-list comment to a public mailing list. Just remember that you might need my help one day, and if your mail has been sent to /dev/null or otherwise ignored then I will never see it. It's also very rude to make demands when I've already told you that I have other work of a much higher priority. IF AND ONLY IF there is sufficient interest from OTHER people, (who can indicate it to me OFF LIST), then I will consider writing up a comprehensive article debunking your ideas and concepts. _Quality_ work takes time, and I've only just finished writing up our response to the claim that our asm optimisation in the rasops bit shifting code wasn't beneficial over the C compiler output, (which of course it was). Also, please fix your email client to respect the Mail-Followup-To: header, this is another lack of etiquette on your part.
