[PrO.GameR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crayder It honestly doesn't matter who thinks what about speed. The users just want to know the speed, we provide it with a comparison for perspective, like "this is slower than this one but faster than this one" or "this one has these features and these ones do/don't". It's not a competition, it's work, fun, and useful.

Yeah thats my point, these are supposed to be fun and useful, but lately everyone is obssessed with getting their include faster than others rather than adding actual useful features, we are way past days of dini and dcmd, speed difference between two are negligible so we should be focusing on features. but yet current active include developers still keep on having a childish competition of being faster by a margin of 50 ms in 100,000 cmds which means <1ms difference in runtime usage of servers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yashas This include nor iZCMD was about performance but it appeared like I was competing with other includes when iZCMD was released (because people started questioning about the performance and everybody got weary about it). It is natural for someone to ask if this include, with these many features, is good performance wise. You can add these features to dcmd and make it 1000 times slower. The performance benchmarks are there just to let you know that this isn't terrible when it comes to performance with these many features.

Yes, it is important for people to know if performance is decent, but just randomly updating things to get 10 ms less than the other include is just purely childish, SickAttack does it way way more, but you also are.