<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wide Finder in Python</title>
	<atom:link href="http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/</link>
	<description>Ask forgiveness, not permission.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:06:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Warren Henning</title>
		<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/comment-page-1/#comment-113</link>
		<dc:creator>Warren Henning</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:21:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/#comment-113</guid>
		<description>Off-topic: what&#039;s the best way to put together an 8-core machine for tinkering with embarassingly parallel algorithms (optimization heuristics, simulations, etc)?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Off-topic: what&#8217;s the best way to put together an 8-core machine for tinkering with embarassingly parallel algorithms (optimization heuristics, simulations, etc)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve</title>
		<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/comment-page-1/#comment-87</link>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/#comment-87</guid>
		<description>Yes. On the same 8-core system, the best time I can get with Tim&#039;s original Ruby version is 2.22 seconds. Not surprising, since Ruby is generally known to be slower than Python and Perl, but it makes up for it with useful language features that allow for highly functional yet very compact code. A lot of work is going into Ruby at the moment, so I would guess the performance difference will be reduced or eliminated within the next year or so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes. On the same 8-core system, the best time I can get with Tim&#8217;s original Ruby version is 2.22 seconds. Not surprising, since Ruby is generally known to be slower than Python and Perl, but it makes up for it with useful language features that allow for highly functional yet very compact code. A lot of work is going into Ruby at the moment, so I would guess the performance difference will be reduced or eliminated within the next year or so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mmao</title>
		<link>http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/comment-page-1/#comment-86</link>
		<dc:creator>mmao</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://steve.vinoski.net/blog/2007/10/07/wide-finder-in-python/#comment-86</guid>
		<description>Have you tested it with the Ruby version, I heard that Ruby has performance problem, not sure if it&#039;s true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you tested it with the Ruby version, I heard that Ruby has performance problem, not sure if it&#8217;s true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.573 seconds -->
