From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <060a01c10fcf$094135c0$3cf7c6d4@SOMA>
From: "Boyd Roberts" <boyd@fr.inter.net>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
References: <20010710102311.AA4B61998A@mail.cse.psu.edu>, <20010710124326.F22003@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <3B548F62.8423A453@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sam vs acme
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:17:22 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d073b4e4-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

From: "David Rubin" <dlrubin@hotmail.com>
> This is not true at all, IMO. I've used both sam and wily, and I've found that
> wily is too slow, especially when searching for text in large documents.

i'd say that rob's caching code is a big win.  have you read the sam
implementation paper?

i understand the advances rob made with acme, but i can't use it.

sam is for me.