Maxime's micro allocation benchmark much faster ?

FG via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Wed Apr 1 11:43:17 PDT 2015


On 2015-04-01 at 16:52, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 14:22:57 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:35:05 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 10:09:12 UTC, FG wrote:
>>>> On 2015-03-31 at 22:56, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>>>>> 1mm allocations
>>>>> 2.066: 0.844s
>>>>> 2.067: 0.19s
>>>>
>>>> That is great news, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> OT: it's a nasty financier's habit to write 1M and 1MM instead of 1k and 1M.  :P
>>>
>>> Yeah, what's with that? I've never seen it before.
>>
>> One cannot entirely escape déformation professionnelle ;) [People mostly write 1,000 but 1mm although 1m is pedantically correct for 1,000).  Better internalize the conventions if one doesn't want to avoid expensive mistakes under pressure.
>
> well yes, who doesn't always not want to never avoid mistakes? ;)
>
> Anyway, as I'm sure you know, the rest of the world assumes SI/metric, or binary in special cases (damn those JEDEC guys!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Bit_and_byte_prefixes

Yeah, there's that, but at least 1024 and 1000 are still in the same ballpark. Bankers are used to the convention and won't mistake M for a million (or you'd read it in every newspaper if they did), but it does create havoc when you see that convention being used outside of the financial context, or worse, being mixed with SI.


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list