Re: Which is better at vm, and why? 2.2 or 2.4

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 09:05:29PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Fri, 2001-10-19 at 20:38, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Keep in mind that once you start exposing tuning parameters you tend to get 
> > lots of user programs out there that break without the parameters, or if the 
> > parameters don't behave the same way across versions.  Official tuning 
> > parameters also get in the way of trying out new algorithms, which might not 
> > even support the old tweaks, for example.
> 
> Agreed.  They also encourage people to write algorithms that are
> suboptimal, but perform OK with proper tuning.  This, imho, is the
> biggest argument against.
> 

How does this differ when the tuning is hard coded?

There are always cases where the algo will fall over.

One thing I can say in favor of hard coded tuning is that it encourages the
cases where it does fall over to be reported, and possibly fixed.