From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Efficiency? Date: 2000/10/06 Message-ID: <3179815826850797@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 678236505 References: <8rau5s$dd4$1@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <8rfm3d$2je$1@counter.bik-gmbh.de> <39DB96F7.DEDB431F@ncgr.org> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 970828454 6420 195.0.192.66 (6 Oct 2000 10:34:14 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 800 35477; gsm: +47 93 256 360; fax: +47 93 270 868; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Oct 2000 10:34:14 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Christopher Browne | As for the notion that one can "very often tell where a major | bottleneck will occur," I'll believe Jon Bentley before I believe you. | His longstanding series on "Programming Pearls" has often looked at the | issue of benchmarking, and found that peoples' intuitions of performance | and efficiency are quite counter to reality. Sure, _after_ they had removed/avoided all the obvious bottlenecks. What you and Adrian are doing here is called an "anachronism": You regard the truth of a statement which applies before writing code to the measurable problems that occur after the code has been written. This is obviously a bottleneck to effective and efficient _thinking_ like arriving at reasonable smart conclusions in a reasonably short time. What I don't understand is why did you guys walked right into this one. #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.