SC, Rev,and RB speed test

[David Vaughan]

On 18/04/2004, at 9:42, "Ken Ray" <kray at sonsothunder.com> wrote:
>
> If you haven't brought this up on the RealBasic list, you probably 
> should to
> be fair... we've had a lot of chances to provide optimized routines; 
> I'm
> assuming the RealBasic routine you use is one you developed... someone 
> on
> the RB list may have a faster algorithm.
>
> Just looking for fairness in the comparison...

Ken

True enough and I welcome someone else having some fun with it but I 
think the point now is that it does not matter if our solutions are 
beaten. The perspective of the original problem was 15 seconds in the 
current application reducing to 8 (RR) or 1 (RB). Had we achieved, say, 
three seconds or better then I would have regarded the speed question 
as no longer material to the product decision and I suspect RG would 
take a stronger position than that. If 800 milliseconds (~ 20x faster 
than SC) is beaten to a pulp at, say, 200mS in an optimised RB strategy 
then who cares? Remember that writing a C++ external was explicitly 
excluded from the options in the speed test, so speed is not in fact 
the be- and end-all.

regards
David
>
> Ken Ray
> Sons of Thunder Software
> Email: kray at sonsothunder.com
> Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/