The Morning Brew #2017
Posted by Chris Alcock on Tuesday 26th January 2016 at 09:29 am | Tagged as: .NET, Development, Morning Brew
Update: I was in a rush this morning and one link crept into the post which I had not proof read – rather embarisingly this link was also to an article of ‘not brew worthy’ quality, as pointed out by a number of commenters on this post. I’ve de-linked the post, but retained the text (marked as strikethrough) for completeness. Apologies for the inclusion – serves me right for rushing things
Software
- Microsoft releases CNTK, its open source deep learning toolkit, on GitHub – Allison Linn
- DotNet APIs – A neat service which documents public Nuget Package’s public API
Information
- JSON Configuration in ASP.NET Core MVC & Strongly-Typed Configuration in ASP.NET Core MVC – James Chambers
- VeST Redux – Specification-driven development – Sebastien Lambla
- Microservices and Service Fabric – The Future Architecture? – Rick McGuire
- XSS’ing the security speaker panel via sli.do – Troy Hunt
Syntactic Sugars are not always good performers!!! – K K Kodoth(Not recommended – included in error)
Thanks for publishing! Appreciated.
The last blog post that you included (Syntactic Sugars are not always good performers!!! ) makes no sense at all. The author uses a flawed benchmark and draws incorrect conclusions. I wish such articles didn’t get that much attention…
Yes, the last article is horribly flawed. It’s interesting as a “how not to benchmark code” discussion point but the actual content is silly.
Please remove this post from your list: “Syntactic Sugars are not always good performers!!!” – it is nonsense.
You must remove that last one, although it is funny
You know by calling out that last one it’s going to make everyone want to go read it. Kind of like looking at a car wreck as you drive past. 🙂
1 dissenting vote.
The article has just been deleted from CodeProject (“Syntactic Sugars are not always good performers!!!”.
That is disappointing, because I wanted to comment on it.
One of the commentators on the site wrote (paraphrase) “these timings do not measure code run performance, just JIT compile time”
Exactly. The reason the author ran only 1 hit count was precisely to time “JIT compiler”, not byte code run time. How long does it take to compile from syntactic sugar to byte code”. (All syntactic sugars compiled to the same byte codes, but the JIT compiler took much more time to compile some syntactic sugars than others).
I recommend that the author update the article to be more clear on that point and re-submit.
@jtankers
I read the article this morning, and I got the impression he was trying to record the run time performance and the not compile time. At least that is what the title is suggesting.
@pb Agreed, I hope the author fixes and re-submits (his CodeProject profile shows prior best article awards).
Deleted Article Archive: http://codeserver.net/temp/Syntactic Sugars are not always good performers!!! – CodeProject.html