On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:59:21 +0300 > Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuc...@outlook.com> wrote: >> >> [1] "pybench - run the standard Python PyBench benchmark suite. This is >> considered >> an unreliable, unrepresentative benchmark; do not base decisions >> off it. It is included only for completeness." > > "unrepresentative" is the main criticism against pybench. PyBench is a > suite of micro-benchmarks (almost nano-benchmarks, actually :-)) that > don't try to simulate any real-world situation. > > PyBench may also be unreliable, because its tests are so static that > they could be optimized away by a clever enough (JIT) compiler. > > Regards > > Antoine.
For what is worth PyBench is bad because it's micro-only. A lot of stuff only shows up in larger examples, especially on an optimizing compiler. The proposed list contains also only micro-benchmarks, which will have the exact same problem as pybench. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
