Rainer Weikusat <rw_at_sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> writes:
> Alex Rousskov <rousskov_at_measurement-factory.com> writes:
>> On 01/24/2013 02:46 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>
>>> In my opinion, using
>>> a more sensibly priority queue algorithm (still both extremely simple
>>> to implement and 'readily available' in a canned form), insofar the
>>> deficiencies of the simple one become actually relevant, makes a lot more
>>> sense than devising special-case 'workarounds' for these deficiencies
>>> because it is conjectured that they *might* otherwise become
>>> relevant.
>>
>> I am all for using better queuing algorithms. However,
>
> [...]
>
> And I'm all for getting some actual work done instead of this
> completely pointless discussion.
In case this wasn't clear enough: I'm convinced you're heading down
the wrong road. This conviction may in itself be wrong in some
absolute sense, however, at the moment, I don't think so, and I
cannot possibly justify spending more time argueing back and forth
about it (and wouldn't want to if I could).
Received on Thu Jan 24 2013 - 23:05:45 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jan 25 2013 - 12:00:09 MST