--- Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac Gouy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - are you thinking of specific methodological objections?
>
> Yes, quite some methodological objections. To be fair: I'm no expert
> in this field and I haven't looked on the site for quite some time.
Thank you for being honest.
> But benchmarks are really hairy, it's really easy to measure much
> more hardware than compiler aspects, people are very different in
> proficiency (in one case I heard even about rejection of a faster
> version of a benchmark in one language -- but I don't remember if
> this was on alioth or another language comparision compilation of
> benchmarks).
Now you're spreading gossip :-)
> If there aren't really tight rules and quite some top
> experts in benchmarking involved, I wouldn't trust any single
> number... but that's just me and YMMV.
I don't think Darren Cook was suggesting that you "trust any single
number" - he linked to pages that compare 18 different measurements.
> > "We must make do with the imperfect evidence that we can find, not
> > merely lament its deficiencies."
>
> Yes, that's true. But language shootout are much overrated und I
> doubt that there are any deep insights in there. So yes, I think I'm
> dismissive.
Again, you seem happy to say they are overrated and dismiss them
without actually having looked - that is not "scientific"!
I'm sorry but what you've said about the benchmarks game seems to be no
more than guesses and assumptions. At least Darren Cook looked.
I've said enough.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
