They even call it out in the paper, I hadn’t given it a thorough enough reading. Damn, they must’ve been a bit miffed.
I think the novelty they're pitching is the lower resources, but I wonder how much of a problem that is in practice.
I think the novelty they're pitching is the lower resources, but I wonder how much of a problem that is in practice.
I also found their phrasing here misleading: "The run time of WENGAN was at least 183 times faster than that of CANU (UL), while at the same time using less memory than other assemblers such as FLYE and SHASTA". Why not say the other way around (which is also a fact): The run time of WENGAN was at least several times slower than that of shasta, while at the same time using more memory than CANU. Come on, this is not the right way to do comparisons!