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!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 09:37:03 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 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)) 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> <113394jjvppao64@corp.supernews.com> <1133s3qnmqmbjfb@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <1133s3qnmqmbjfb@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4232a9f7$0$26552$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Mar 2005 09:36:07 MET NNTP-Posting-Host: fb417877.newsread4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=SKVOa CTips wrote: > Like I said, if one knows what one is doing (which he does) then one can > disregard the rules. If one does not know what one is doing (which you > don't) then one should follow the rules. If one defines what is the right thing to do and does it then there is nothing to argue about. OTOH, who says who is doing right because they are referring to some machine that allows them to explain that they know what they are doing? This may sound like far fetched, but there are other references, e.g. (semi-)formal economic, or organisational. If "To produce a fast program, and a fast enough one, but not the fastest will be easier, and sooner," is true, then, "so do that" is an argument outperforming every benchmark argument out there (yes, the arguement is not always true). If someone is utterly ignorant of anything inside the computer on the desktop and they ask, "can this VB program format 30 documents per hour?" then they know very well what they are asking, and they are right when they are suspicious of someone explaining to them that this program is wasting a dose of valuable instruction cycles and that with proper knowledge, language, and effort, the same box could format 110 documents per hour. In the commercial frame of reference, _this_ is ignorant in their view, because in this case the benchmarkers don't follow the rules by wasting brain cycles on silly speed things ;-). Some people do know (very well) how to write a benchmark, I'm not one of them. This does not however imply that a benchmark incorporates all the references to the important things to measure or to discuss. E.g. a compiler has a "human user interface", and its output is not just performance. A compiler's input is, de facto, not just instructions to a specific computing machine. So combining "human user interface" and "not just instructions" yields guidance as to what should be measured when comparing relative merits of a programming language in a given situation. Georg