Or to put it diffently: Bert supplied the first contribution in this
thread which is about performance actually measuring performance......

More is welcome.

On 10/27/16, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, in this case a series of tests across collection classes actually
> would be a proof. A single point measurement is not a statistically
> relevant result.
>
> --Hannes
>
> On 10/27/16, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> | b |
>>> b := (1 to: 10000) asBag.
>>> [b isEmpty] bench
>>>
>>> before: :  '5,540 per second. 181 microseconds per run.'
>>> now:  '167,000 per second. 6 microseconds per run.'
>>>
>>> In my book that's a speedup worth having.
>>
>> You're depending on the superclass implementation in Collection for
>> that speedup.  What did you say about that yesterday?
>>
>> Honestly, Bert, it almost feels like you're being intellectually
>> dishonest.  You chose the only one that got sped up and ignored all
>> the ones that got slowed down.  AND, you also ignored all the other
>> points (again) which render the above point irrelevant.  Sad.
>>
>> I give up.  You "win".
>>
>>
>