From: Andreas Huber (ahd6974-spamgroupstrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-22 16:34:09
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Andreas Huber wrote:
>> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>>>>> That's interesting. I was under the impression that exactly such
>>>>>> a list of alternate implementation techniques would not satisfy
>>>>>> you, because it would in no way show that the design I chose is
>>>>>> the best performance-wise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? That would be the main point.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand. A list of alternate techniques would show that
>>>> none of these techniques satisfies the requirements but it doesn't
>>>> say anything why the current FSM implementation performs worse than
>>>> any of these techniques.
>>>
>>> You don't just list the techniques. You explain them and summarize
>>> their performance characteristics.
>>
>> That's what I meant. This will still not show how "good" the current
>> design is. It will only show that the current design satisfies
>> requirements that other designs don't and explain the techniques (and
>> performance characteristics) I have chosen to satisfy the
>> requirements. Whether those techniques are the best performance-wise
>> is a completely different matter.
>
> I don't understand the destinction you're trying to make.
We've discussed that in the other thread...
-- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.