This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The term "interleaved deltas" does not appear in the solitary source from Rochkind. As far as I can determine, the term was introduced by Tichy (ironically perhaps, since the purpose of this topic is to construct an attack page aimed at Tichy). TEDickey (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the converse: Tichy's paper is a non-scientific attack on SCCS. Non-scientific because the tests are not fully documented and thus not repeatable. Note that even the Tichy paper only claims 30% "advantage" over SCCS and the checksum algorithm in SCCS those days consumed more CPU time. The main claim from Tichy that RCS is supposed to be faster than SCCS because of the "better" data structures in RCS is thus void. If Tichy did ever see better persormance in RCS, this was only because of the missing checksum computation in RCS. In other words: the claim that RCS is supposed to be faster than SCCS is unverifyable original research, but everybody can verify on his own that SCCS is never slower than RCS, just do your own tests and report! So what exactly is your point? Schily (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are not providing any reliable source to support your discussion. TEDickey (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual nonconstructive blabla. I am not going to waste any time with you anymore until you decide to send something constructive, fact oriented and covered by reliable sources. Schily (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you have no sources, so the discussion will continue to be one-sided. TEDickey (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have no interest in a fact based discussion, continuing to try a discussion with you would continue to be a waste of time. Send facts instead of accusations if you like to continue. Schily (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]