From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 5 17:55:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DC116A4CE for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:55:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from postfix4-1.free.fr (postfix4-1.free.fr [213.228.0.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7611D43D2D for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2004 17:55:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rsidd@online.fr) Received: from imp4-q.free.fr (imp4-q.free.fr [212.27.42.4]) by postfix4-1.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52546D098B; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:55:35 +0100 (CET) Received: by imp4-q.free.fr (Postfix, from userid 33) id 4F21612868; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:55:35 +0100 (MET) Received: from papagena.rockefeller.edu (papagena.rockefeller.edu [129.85.41.71]) by imp4-q.free.fr (IMP) with HTTP for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1078538135.40492f9742e70@imp4-q.free.fr> Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:55:35 +0100 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Daniela References: <20040306012556.GA2554@online.fr> <200403060245.05790.dgw@liwest.at> In-Reply-To: <200403060245.05790.dgw@liwest.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Most wanted X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2004 01:55:36 -0000 Daniela wrote: > I like doing AI programming, that's numbercrunching most of the time. > > A compiler can't, for example, know whether you need to have zero returned > from the atoi() function when the user entered nonsense. If you don't need to > check whether the user has entered a valid number, you can do it *much* > faster. Excellent example. Here you're limited by the speed of the fingers of the user who's entering the data, so there's *absolutely no point* in optimising the atoi() function in this way. (Or if you're reading from the disk, the disk I/O will be the bottleneck, though it's admittedly faster than fingers.) R