Re: LuaJIT2 performance for number crunching

[Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>]

/sorry for thread hijack - a short note of style/

Please avoid these aggregating, aggresive adjectives. They create an
aggresive atmosphere (="you are an idiot, and your stuff is junk")
instead of a friendly one ("lets work on this together").

A little more courtsey might get you further and get you better
responses. I can tell myself from now managing an OpenSource Project
that other people actually use, these kind of insertions just make
your defense instincts go up, instead of either realizing someone or
wanting to help notions.

For example:
"... and LuaJIT2 failed completely to optimize the implemented algorithm..."

instead just say:

"... and LuaJIT2 failed to optimize the implemented algorithm..."

Same sentence, much nicer. Regardless if its true or not.

"LuaJIT2 have some major limitations for implementing numerical algorithms."
->
"seems that LuaJIT2 has some limitations when implementing numerical
algorithms."

Okay, I note its also an english as foreign language issue (as with
myself :-), but even some native english speaker make the same kind of
adjective agression.

"As you have seen I have discovered already a major problem with the
RK4 implementation"

at least:

"As you have seen I have discovered already a problem with the RK4
implementation"

might work on the sentence as whole.

Then its no surprise you eventually get: "I'm sick of this whining. I
will not reply to you anymore."
(While I thought myself with some complainers before, its not
something I would have uttered from a formal position, but well some
are more open to express what they really think. When I get one of
these "completly fails to" .. "totally wrong" messages, my initial
thought is just "curse you", only after a while I manage to get up a
formal response. But another tone might have getten the other one to
actually cooperate)

This is kind of more friendly criticism you learn from some how to do
academic writing books. Its often part of an essay to debunk past
previous claims (I dont remember the title of the book by hearth). The
example of completly was even given, instead never write "[X]
completly missed that..". Treat other autors with respect, will get
you treated with more respect not only by those you targeted.

Kind regards,
Axel


On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Francesco Abbate
<francesco.bbt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/2/14 Geoff Leyland <geoff_leyland@fastmail.fm>:
>>> By the way if someone want to help with this task he is very welcome.
>> Any particular reason to use RK4?  My trusty old copy of Numerical Recipes suggests higher order methods with implicit error estimation are better.
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with you, other methods are better but the idea is that I want
> to test the LuaJIT implementation with a simpler algorithm and if it
> works I will implement later a better algorithm.
>
> As you have seen I have discovered already a major problem with the
> RK4 implementation that I wrote and I need to adopt a different
> approach with dynamic code generation to specialize the code with the
> dimension of the system.
>
> --
> Francesco
>
>