Yes. Actual benchmarking showed either no gains or performance regressions, depending on the benchmark, with occasional marginal improvements at certain array sizes due to cache hierarchies.
This is not a general "optimization" that should be done.
This is all explained in detail in multiple places linked in the article. There were multiple reasons.
1. The performance gains were unclear - some things got slower, some got faster.
2. This was deemed as a good "intro" issue, something that makes sense for a human to engage with to get them up to speed. This wasn't seen as worthy of an automated PR because the highest value would be to teach a human how to contribute.
Yes. Actual benchmarking showed either no gains or performance regressions, depending on the benchmark, with occasional marginal improvements at certain array sizes due to cache hierarchies.
This is not a general "optimization" that should be done.
This is all explained in detail in multiple places linked in the article. There were multiple reasons.
1. The performance gains were unclear - some things got slower, some got faster.
2. This was deemed as a good "intro" issue, something that makes sense for a human to engage with to get them up to speed. This wasn't seen as worthy of an automated PR because the highest value would be to teach a human how to contribute.
The maintainer explained the reasoning for closing the issue quite well in a comment.