• To: "'Karl Waclawek'" <karl@w...>,"'John Cowan'" <cowan@m...>
• Subject: RE: The subsetting has begun
• From: "Martin Soukup" <martin@d...>
• Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 09:41:03 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <001501c2da35$0f924040$0207a8c0@karl>

> > It is well known that claims of efficiency and inefficiency mean
nothing
> > unless backed up with numbers, for programmers' intuition on the
subject
> > is notoriously in error.
> 
> This is no intuition. I can whip up a quick demo in Delphi
> (I already did - took 5 minutes) which shows that passing a Boolean
result
> up from a 5 levels deep nested procedure call executed in a loop is at
> least
> 100 times as fast as throwing and catching an exception for the same
> purpose.
> I can post or e-mail it if you really want to see it.

I did the same in Java, and it is well over 1000 times slower. I agree
with John that performance isn't everything, but 1000 times slower using
the same technology is, IMO, completely unreasonable.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
  • Parsing Performance
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: The waterfall model lives? (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Previous by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Parsing Performance
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread