On 10/12/06, Daniel Rogers <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 2:03 AM, Øyvind Kolås wrote:
> On 10/12/06, Daniel Rogers <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> sllooooooooooow. I've encountered this oh-so-wonderful abstraction
>> before (JAI uses it, among others). Making a method call in the inner
>> loop of your pixel calculation routine is a big-nono. The first
>> optimization you will make is to remove that. Typically, the common
> Any such optimizations are premature optimizations at the moment.
> At the
> current stage making the source code of the included operations
> general as well
> as easy to read, understand and debug is more important than
> efficient code.
> The operation that geert is currently working on is a displacement
> map, what
> you are suggesting would lead to writing a separate displacement
> map operation
> for each interpolation method. This would lead to very unwieldy code.
Yeah, the IP libraries I've worked with all do something similar,
unfortunately.
Something similar to what? Having a proxy object for doing interpolation or
implement separate displacement etc. operation per interpolator?
If you mean the first, I do not find readable code unfortunate, a
problem with the current GIMP code base IMHO is that some algorithms
are optimized beyond recognition.
/Øyvind K.
--
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
-- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/
_______________________________________________
Gegl-developer mailing list
Gegl-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer
