Re: optimizing compilers
Re: optimizing compilers
- Subject: Re: optimizing compilers
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:08:12 -0800
>
For example, Quartz is very powerful and produces beautiful results,
>
but it
>
is very slow IMHO. Interpreted Display Postscript running in a separate
>
process was faster for most operations than Quartz as far as I can tell.
What makes you (or anyone, for that matter :->) think that Quartz is a
significant time-sink for typical OS X usage? Does anybody have any
hard evidence? If so, I (and Apple, I suspect) would be interested to
hear it. From both my personal experience and benchmarks I have heard
about (but have not personally conducted), Quartz is actually
phenomenally fast at the things it is typically asked to do. There may
be relatively unoptimized (read: slow :->) parts of it, but I haven't
seen any evidence that that is an issue for typical use. I would look
elsewhere for the culprit.
Ben Haller
Stick Software