Be specific or you risk having your reader think the opposite. This is such a common mistake, it blights discourse about all things numerical. I have entirely given up the use of percentages to describe change and only use them for describing portions of things, e. Surely you mean 0. That is, the old ones have a distance limit rather than a speed limit.
Good catches. Apparently I am guilty of one of the sins of which I have accused others. If X is an order of magnitude faster than Y, Y is an order of magnitude faster than X. I do use that phrasing for huge changes. Where the hell is the confusion? My only comment in my defense is that the more I talked to people about this the more conflicting-and-contradictory viewpoints I found. I felt forced to refute some beliefs that you may not have encountered.
Personally, anything that has to do with time, it is much better to write something like X times faster, the bigger the number, the better. There is also a problem around language regarding improvement and degradation when you are referring to absolute quantities of time not rates. Suppose a benchmark normally takes 5s but now we experience a regression and the test takes 10s. One can say:. Everything you and others have mentioned also applies to performance improvements, with one caveat that is unlikely to cause much worry for most of us: whereas the amount of degradation can increase practically without bound, the amount of improvement can only increase up to our ability to measure it, i.
Great blog Bruce! I learned a lot from it, so thanks for your efforts! Re the post, recently I find myself avoiding people not capable of interpreting such basic things correctly.
Come on! What achievements can we expect from such people in life? Such problems should not even exist. Eh, me and my idealism…. ES6 - GistTree. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Forecast for randomascii: programming, tech topics, with a chance of unicycling.
Skip to content. Home About. Onwards… Describing performance improvements exists at the intersection of mathematics and linguistics. Consider this hypothetical press release: AirTrain Inc. Share this: Email Reddit Twitter. Insert round numbers like 90 and instead of the unround numbers to get everyone on the same page. If you think of "faster" as implying which process' speed is greater, your formula would be correct.
If you think it is implying which process' time-span is smaller, their formula is correct. There is a good answer here. The question is written incorrectly. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. It makes it easier to use whole numbers..
Roughly Improve this answer. Darryl Hein k 88 88 gold badges silver badges bronze badges. Ray K Ray K 1, 8 8 silver badges 17 17 bronze badges. It looks like it should be T1 is T2 is They did say "1. To say that something that's no faster is identical to something that's "1x faster" is a terrible confusion of thought.
It's reasonable to expect that, for example, "1x faster" would mean "for a baseline of 1 operation per second, it's faster by 1 operation per second, i. I agree based on my experience reading these types of comparisons. I've never thought there was any ambiguity to saying "1. Isn't this always the case with such comparisons? One is meant to multiple initialValue by e. No, the word faster means an increase by that amount. English, you subtle trickster! I'm not sure I've ever seen anything described as being '1x' faster, without any fractional part.
It's such an uncommon usage, I really don't think you can categorically declare that '1x faster means twice as fast'. Because it means the same as A is 0.
Not really, that doesn't make sense. It's "0. Saying "faster" when it's really actually slower is just confusing and ungrammatical.
0コメント