[racket-dev] [plt] Push #24958: master branch updated

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 11 21:25:04 EDT 2012

Is 'tool' plus flat subcollections really out? 

I am not really keen on 'tuning', plus I see a chance to thin out the collection top-level tree here. 

On Jul 11, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Robby Findler wrote:

> I like coaching for the (formerly known as) performance report tool. A lot!
> I was suggesting "tuning" for the collection that would house the
> future visualizer and the performance coach and hopefully eventually a
> memory profiler. (And maybe Eli's profiler could move in there someday
> too.)
> Robby
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>> Would "tuning" work?
>> They were correct, and you conjectured correctly. We conflated 'optimization' with 'performance gains.' As everyone knows who has been around real compilers and their writers, some 'optimizations' are 'pessimizations' as Keith used to call them. And of course even when 'optimizations' reduce the running time and/or the space consumption, they aren't _optimizations_ as John Dennis used to remind us. There is a similar conflation that additional related work pointed out. People tend to confuse 'analysis results' with 'can do optimization'. This is certainly not true for in-lining in Racket and if you know of more those optimizations, I'd love to hear about them.
>> 'Tuning' would work but we decided that 'coaching' was a good term for what was going on from the programmer's perspective. And the word isn't used anywhere else in CS as far as I know, while other terms (including 'tuning') are used and may have a different connotation.

Posted on the dev mailing list.