stream() / parallelStream() methods

[Doug Lea]

On 02/09/13 10:36, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:

> I still wouldn't immediately blanch at the 64 allocations. Do users really want
> to use parallelism to get savings /that/ small?  I thought we would care more
> about the cases in which the parallelism is a huge win, not so marginal.

If you take the "what's one more cycle" point of view consistently, then
it would never be worth trying to parallelize anything. So minimizing
seq overhead while keeping nice APIs is the *only* success criterion.


>
> I will stop short of trying to convince us it's "important", but I would
> definitely agree that if the cost is only some implementation ugliness, that
> shouldn't be enough to justify the method existing.Here's

Here's another breach in my promise not to have an opinion
about anything in the Steam API: I think "parallelStream()"
is much nicer than "stream().parallel()".

-Doug