Subject: Re: But why? (step back)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/24/1996 10:46:29
[ OK, Jason wins for "coolest toys" :-]
I think we've lost focus on this thread. I missed the start of
it, but it's now focused on micro- vs. "algorithmic" optimization.
I don't think anyone's arguing that micro-optimization doesn't
(usually) give you the kinds of gains in performance that
improving the algorithm can.
However, once you've improved the algorithms, micro-optimization can
help performance of real-world applications--some applications more
than others, certainly, but even I/O bound applications can gain a
small amount from an optimized syscall interface. What's wrong with
that, if someone has the time, energy, and inclination to make those
I think it's great that David and others have the time to spend on it.
That's one of the great things about free software--they're free to do
so, and it's great that Linux gives them the framework to do it in.
I think it would be neat if there were some NetBSD and Linux folks who
could engage in -*_friendly_*- competition to try and out-do each other
in performance and features on as many architectures as possible.
What I've seen is that the usual gambit seems to be trying to out-do
each other in denegrating the other which is a useless past-time unless
you feed off negative vibes. I don't.
NetBSD could certainly use both kinds of optimization.
Allen Briggs - end killing - email@example.com