I misspelled "slower" (was thinking rolling and typing slower. :) ).

The point is, if using the library is noticably slower then just rolling 
your own then
some people will always use there own.

Look at C++ for an example of what I mean.
std::string has been around for some years now, but it seems like every new 
C++ framework
or substancial library has a "FrameWorkOrLibrary::String" defined.  Why?  
Performance.  The
standard library string doesn't have the performance they want accross the 
board so every
library writer ever rolls there own.  As a result if you try to be a good 
programmer and reuse
code you will end up writing a bunch of stupid conversion functions to all 
these types.

I know we are just talking about 2 methods here, but it's a bad president to 
set.  Would the
implimentation Jon mentioned work, or what are the bad points?  The debugger 
wouldn't let
you walk the code then or?

Thanks

>From: "Klaus D. Witzel" <klaus.witzel at cobss.com>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>Subject: Re: Idea for a possibly better Collection occurrencesOf method.
>Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:31:40 +0200
>
>Hi J J,
>
>mind to explain your comment "that's really unfortunate that using the  
>library is slowing".
>
>Whatever "better" method is used, they all have to send the #do: message  
>and so:
>
>- #do: must be fastest
>- users of #do: must be slower than pure #do:
>
>Only under (very) rare conditions can *more* code yield *less* execution  
>time, I posted one of them as a puzzle some time ago
>
>-  
>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-July/106462.html
>
>/Klaus
>
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:45:32 +0200, J J wrote:
>
>>That's really unfortunate that using the library is slowing then rolling  
>>your own. :(
>
>