stdio performance silliness

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

kris wrote:
> Oh, come now. Yesterday Tango was the "fastest" on your machine, and 
> today it is not. And you're now claiming a 50% loss in throughput?

Probably it's a misunderstanding. Yesterday the Tango that did not 
output the newlines was fastest. I don't have Tango code to test a 
version that reads lines including the newline, so I tried the 
Cout(line)("\n") thing, which was slow.

I'd be of course happy to use something that is faster, no matter where 
it comes from.

> I put it to you that you're not being very forthcoming in allowing for 
> changes in tango.io to address this anomoly in your timings? Yesterday I 
> pointed out where to make the change so that you could try tango without 
> the automatic chomp; you didn't bother to do that. There is a change in 
> SVN implementing your request, but you're not bothering to try that either.

It's not that I didn't bother; just getting my app to link with Tango 
was hard for me, so recompiling and rebuilding libtango.a was likely to 
take me a long time. Furthermore, I don't have svn installed nor admin 
access on the cluster I work on.

If you put a libtango.a somewhere to be found with http or ftp, I'd be 
glad to download it.

> Instead, you appear to be using empty rhetoric and exaggeration to pit 
> one library against another. That's hardly being helpful, Andrei.
> 
> Tango has been shown to be very efficient on Win32, and there's no 
> reason to assert that it can't be so on linux. We've seen that flush() 
> is a no-no for linux, and that it has some impact on Win32 also. That 
> can be rectified, as Walter kindly pointed out. If you're serious about 
> giving Tango a shot, then give it some time for the different platform 
> specifics to be addressed. Is that really too much to ask? Of a beta 
> release?

Of course this is great news. There's only one guy using rhetoric in 
this thread, and that's not me :o).


Andrei