From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 108717,a7c8692cac750b5e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid115aec,gidf43e6,gid108717,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-08!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: CTips Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng,comp.programming Subject: Re: 10 rules for benchmarking (was Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:14:24 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <1133rhdt7dan4fa@corp.supernews.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org> <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk> <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org> <1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net> <112rs0bdr2aftdf@corp.supernews.com> <1inxxr988rxgg$.1w9dedak41k89.dlg@40tude.net> <112s1r0rf0o8nca@corp.supernews.com> <112sonip5v4dca6@corp.supernews.com> <112t3de6fu04f38@corp.supernews.com> <1110396477.596174.285520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <112vb2t8eonuhed@corp.supernews.com> <1110422108.925127.54110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <11329cb96h2p19f@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9157 comp.realtime:1296 comp.software-eng:4864 comp.programming:17824 Date: 2005-03-11T14:14:24-05:00 List-Id: Pascal Obry wrote: > CTips writes: > > >>Since it appears that several people out here are making some very basic >>mistakes when they report benchmark numbers, I thought I'd write a small note >>on how to do benchmarking. > > > Thanks a lot :) > > Did you see my note that a good benchmark had to be done on the real > application ? I pretty well know that a stupid benchmark like this means > nothing. But well, you did (I think it was you, sorry if not) use this > argument by bindly say that Ada was slow. This just because an unknown web > site with very bad code (at least for the Ada part) was showing that Ada was > lot slower! > > At least I have showed that a decent Ada implementation (very close to the C++ > one) is running at the same speed. But I have not hours to spend to provide > all the data as described in your post. > > Pascal. > Nope; your run-time was way too small for the number to be at all reliable. Try running the null program: int main(void) { return 0; } under cygwin/windows. On my machine, the best of 5 returns: real 0m0.017s user 0m0.030s sys 0m0.000s Contrast this with the matrix code [I removed the printf()] real 0m0.018s user 0m0.030s sys 0m0.015s In other words, the startup code dominates all the numbers, and you can't judge anything from it. All you've proved is that you don't understand how to benchmark programs, which means that you've never had to *really* worry about performance. Based on this thread, I think most of the Ada advocates here (and maybe most Ada programmers) - don't know how a processor works - don't know how to measure performance - don't know how to program for performance - don't know where Ada will hurt performance - don't really care about performance This is pretty much in line with my experience. The Ada advocates (I've known several) don't really know how to program for performance. All the people I know who program for performance pick C (if they have the choice).