[erlang-questions] Why is erlc so quick to start?
Mon Jan 5 23:15:30 CET 2015
I'm not sure what ramifications it'll have. 0 async threads may be bad
to do for a tool that does so much file processing.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 04:07 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Tristan Sloughter wrote:
> > I added all those arguments to rebar3's escript and seems to be a
> > consistent speedup as expected, dropping from 0.6s to 0.3s for a run
> > that doesn't do anything but print the help.
> Are you certain that nothing will break or no plugin will be
> constrained by that? If not, we should consider it for rebar 2.x as
> > Can't say that my eyes see much of a difference though ;). But no
> > reason not to keep it in.
> Well, it depends on what response times your other interactions with
> the machine in front of you have. Icon animations and other solutions
> were implemented to signal that it's pointless to click again and one
> has to wait for the action to be completed.
> On the command line it _definitely_ has to be under .5 or .4 seconds
> to not disrupt, so going from .6 to .3 is very noticeable difference.
More information about the erlang-questions