<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Jacob Hookom</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/7a749fdc27cf6e16c4cc94ed4350d82a/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:11:11 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Turbocharge your string keyed hashmaps</title><link>http://var-log-mind.disqus.com/turbocharge_your_string_keyed_hashmaps/#comment-1209614</link><description>How could that be faster when you are just deferring the regular String lookup to the Symbol map and then only slightly optimizing *another* hash lookup.  If you make a case to keep a hard reference to the Symbol object outside of the map, then you might as well do that for the String itself and get the same optimization.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jacob Hookom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:37:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Turbocharge your string keyed hashmaps</title><link>http://var-log-mind.disqus.com/turbocharge_your_string_keyed_hashmaps/#comment-1209618</link><description>Looking at your tests, theres a couple issues:  1) you run the 'usual' test first without a JVM warmup-- so that 1% probably shouldn't even be there, I'd even say you'd hit a negative ratio there.  2) You aren't accounting for the Symbol map lookup in your tests and are using a hard reference to the symbols.  A real world example of the testSymbol would be to walk through each String key, do a Symbol.get(...) and then do the hashmap lookup.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jacob Hookom</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:11:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Kathy Sierra, Hani Suleiman, and Tim Bray</title><link>http://curiouscreature.disqus.com/kathy_sierra_hani_suleiman_and_tim_bray/#comment-5883057</link><description>yes, it's horrible what happened to kathy, but to put hani or any other bellicose java blogger in the same capacity as those who convey death threats or physical harm is just stupid.  tim wasn't the only one to make that comparison.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jacob Hookom</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:16:43 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>