User talk:Peak

Hi Peak, and welcome to RC. Thanks for your contributions so far, but I would just say that we tend to omit timings on RC or restrict them to orders_of_magnitude comparisons or use woolly terms such as "roughly 100 times faster than", or "" time for a coffee". The reason is if conditions are stated to make more accurate times reproducible then that information would obscure the comparison of other aspects of the language and, from other sites, it just isn't easy to do. In short, I, as a long term RC user, tend to very rarely quote timings. Thanks, --Paddy3118 (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall if I've ever done so here on RC, but when I've had to do that sort of thing elsewhere, I tend to include a before-and-after comparison from my machine, demonstrating the difference, rather than saying "X will be so many milliseconds faster" or whatever, e.g.:

before  after
1.234   1.111
1.251   1.059
1.223   1.181

-- Erik Siers (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik, that's good too, but again it is hard for others to make much of such timings: is a 10% difference truly significant or reproducible by others for example? With those timings I am likely to state that timings are comparable and no more. --Paddy3118 (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I before E

Hi Peak, I removed your edit that gave the more refined and possibly better fitting the English language version of the mnemonic as the task refers to the much more frequently used version of plain "I before e except after c". --Paddy3118 (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Mutual recursion

Hi Peak, which version of jq did you use? I'm asking because I get a different result with the released binaries for jq 1.3, jq 1.4 and jq 1.5, and with a self compiled version from git head. This is the result I get when running your code:

[1,0,2,1,3,2,4,3,5,4,6,5,7,6,8,7,9,8,10,9]
[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]

Thanks, Domo Sokrat (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)