Hi. > >>I'm willing to help on this if you want. > >What do you propose? > You mentioned the need for people to review/try the piece of code > you've posted. I haven't done yet, but I'm happy to.
Yes, please try it, and report unexpected results. Thank you! [I'll send you the Java file in a separate mail.] > As for japex being too heavy. I agree, I didn't realize it needed > input files, I thought only annotations were required. Also, > although everyone says that benchmarking must be done very > carefully, I think that most people do "quick and dirty" timing... Yes and it seems that, if done even slightly differently, they lead to contradicting results... That's why I thought of a simple utility that would nevertheless have the benchmarked alternatives on equal ground with respect to what might be happening in the JVM during the test. > Having said that, well-formatted reports can be useful for starting > a discussion. But the class you propose is so concise that it > probably wins over japex and others... Well, it would be nice to compare the results of this utility and of Japex on some selected codes. If you feel like doing it... Best regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
