From: Mark Davis (
Date: Mon Feb 23 2009 - 09:34:29 CST

  • Next message: Michael D. Adams: "Re: NFC FAQ"

    Clearly it isn't a good ideal to lock up a machine when when it hits a rare
    character; nobody's saying anything like that. The goal is acceptable
    performance for everything, and optimized performance for the overwhelming


    On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 03:56, David Starner <> wrote:

    > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Mark Davis <> wrote:
    > > And that is bad, why? The fact code can be fast-pathed is typically a key
    > > tool to achieving performance goals.
    > [...]
    > > Measuring inputs that match reality is vital for producing
    > high-performance
    > > code. Let's take an example. In ICU we routinely maximize for BMP
    > > characters. While someone doing extensive work in cuneiform might be
    > > somewhat slower, the code is faster for the vast majority of cases. So
    > that
    > > is the right way to code it.
    > If and only if it's "somewhat slower" and not "oh my god why has my
    > computer locked up". Algorithms with awful worst-case scenarios can be
    > the cause for a very frustrating experience for users who aren't
    > considered important by the programmer. And if the program is on a
    > server, no matter how bad and unrealistic the data is, the program
    > must be capable of processing it in a reasonable amount of time,
    > because if not, someone will find it amusing to send it to the
    > program, over and over.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 23 2009 - 09:39:14 CST