Re: Nice example about the "inefficiently" of the tcl "c" api.

On 08.09.24 15:26, Gerald Lester wrote:

On 9/8/24 08:04, undroidwish wrote:

On 9/6/24 22:36, aotto1968 wrote:
>

Down is the "C" code of the C-Function to test the an "object" to be valid.
...

>
Hmm, to judge the "efficiently" of the tcl "c" api is between difficult
and impossible due to your "cryptically" "c" code snippets. In other
words, more context would be of tremendous help. So where is the beef?
Or ham, or even spam?

 Others, including myself, have asked him for the Tcl and Python code he is using to get his measurements -- he has consistently refused to supply the code.
 Long and short, to me this is just spam.

I understand that the "missing-code" thing is just a kind of "self-protection" issue
→ If you make an performance check between TCL and JAVA you don't start with "analyze the JAVA kernel" etc
→ If I post a result this is the the result *AFTER* all known optimization was applied etc
→ If I write that TCL is ~30% slower as PY than it is so.
→ Even if I would send you the PLMK-kernel-code you probably will never understand this but this is no problem
   because you also drive a car without "understand" the internals of a car and if I say that PORSCHE
   is fasten than "VAUXHALL" than nobody will say:
   -> "I don't accept this until I have checked the VAUXHALL design specs".