[Shootout-list] X per second scoring system

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> ...deleted
> > I can only translate this as, "It is work (real problem).
> Also I have a
> > perceived issue (silly non-problem)."
>
> ok, you may prefer 2 valued logic. personally i prefer shades-of-gray.

No, I like shades of grey just fine.  This is not one of them.  As I
said, if you really care about readability *that* much, comment and
offset the boilerplate properly.

//======================================================================
======
// LIKE THIS
//======================================================================
======

If you're not willing to add such comments, then you're not sufficiently
serious about readability.  Thus not to be taken so seriously about what
would be 'harmful' to add to the tests, from a readability standpoint.

> ...deleted
> >
> > I've looked at several C FFIs in various languages.  They
> aren't rocket
> > science.  The worst of them just make you do some argument
> swizzling or
> > some such.  A timer available in a language is just a function call.
> > The cases of 'potential worrisome complication' are
> exhausted and you're
> > just not seeing this.
>
> my definition of ''exhausted'' would in this case mean that i
> would have
> had to look at all the languages that could be part of the shootout.
> your definition makes it a lot easier to exhaust.

Yep.  I assume the 10 C FFIs I've looked at in my life, and the C
standard, and the actual number of arguments to an OS timer function
call, are representative of the difficulty level of the problem.  You're
making a theoretical mountain out of a factual molehill.

> what is it that stops us from using 30..60 as the value to replace
> ''somehting elkse''?

Probably something to do with human sense of time, and how we end up
designing OSes and machines in practice, particularly with regards to
benchmarking.  Why does statistics define a standard deviation?  But
please feel free to design a test for actual measurable differences and
needed epsilons for error bounds.  It's just more work, and I thought
you were lazy.  :-)

> you are correct. i too belive that n should change for each test, and
> each language. it makes it easier to create the graphs. one n
> makes for too short lines.

Nice plus there.

> however, we are (well, i
> am) talking about ''timing trials'' from where the quoute
> came. and yes,
> if you look in the shootout you will find just such a graph.

I am thick, I think you should provide me a URL of such a graph.

> > You do not have graphs like Knuth's graphs.
>
> again, not having read his works i am not in a position to
> discuss them.
> however, we are (well, i am) talking about ''timing trials''
> where there
> is a graph for every test. you have read the paper, yes?

I'm sorry, I have done a 'famous name transposition'.  I meant
Kernighan.

Those K people.  sheesh.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.