On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:08 AM, sebb wrote:
> >> > On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >> Anyway... amusing play stuff when I shoul
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:08 AM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Anyway... amusing play stuff when I should be sleeping; and not
>> >> believing FindBugs too much.
On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:08 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Anyway... amusing play stuff when I should be sleeping; and not
> >> believing FindBugs too much. Need to try for Double, Long etc; maybe
> >> this lore
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:08 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> Anyway... amusing play stuff when I should be sleeping; and not
>> believing FindBugs too much. Need to try for Double, Long etc; maybe
>> this lore holds more true there. Plus maybe it's Apple's JVM bein
On 15/03/2009, sebb wrote:
> On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Findbugs claims we should be writing Integer.valueOf not new Integer
> > as it's guaranteed to be faster. The same for the other primitive
> > wrappers. I can't let such a statement of surety go untested, so I had
> > a p
On 15/03/2009, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Findbugs claims we should be writing Integer.valueOf not new Integer
> as it's guaranteed to be faster. The same for the other primitive
> wrappers. I can't let such a statement of surety go untested, so I had
> a play and used the following as a test:
>
>
Findbugs claims we should be writing Integer.valueOf not new Integer
as it's guaranteed to be faster. The same for the other primitive
wrappers. I can't let such a statement of surety go untested, so I had
a play and used the following as a test:
public class Perf {
public static void main(St
