I have to bitterly disagree with the comment. I just copy and paste into a file the C# sample and then compiled it (using csc.exe and framework 1.1 but I guess there's non difference with previous versions of the software) and it all compiled fine. So I wonder if the user who wrote the comment actually tried to compile and test the sample code in C#. This is the benchmark result for the first line of the test (I'm still waiting for the next ones) as provided by the quoted framework version and a AMD Athlon 2000+ with 1Gb memory and 120Gb hard disk as a test platform:
found AAAGTAAGCC at 1000000 it took 90 miliseconds
It's quite interesting to notice that the CPU usage during the execcution of this sample was 100% most of the time.
So this test is a valid one at list at the point that it can be reproduced by anyone having access to .Net framework and Java SDK.
I have to bitterly disagree with the comment. I just copy and paste into a file the C# sample and then compiled it (using csc.exe and framework 1.1 but I guess there's non difference with previous versions of the software) and it all compiled fine. So I wonder if the user who wrote the comment actually tried to compile and test the sample code in C#. This is the benchmark result for the first line of the test (I'm still waiting for the next ones) as provided by the quoted framework version and a AMD Athlon 2000+ with 1Gb memory and 120Gb hard disk as a test platform:
found AAAGTAAGCC at 1000000 it took 90 miliseconds
It's quite interesting to notice that the CPU usage during the execcution of this sample was 100% most of the time.
So this test is a valid one at list at the point that it can be reproduced by anyone having access to .Net framework and Java SDK.
Have a nice day,
ACL