[Shootout-list] X per second scoring system

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> this is correct. i tend to do that when confronted with exhausted
> researches that does not exhaust.
> i much prefer the number 10, or a more humble ''some'', in this case.

Do you need to see a nuclear mushroom cloud up front and personal?  Or
are you willing to go by the few old H-bomb movies you might have seen?

Pedantically, I doubt you could do anything with INTERCAL, Malbolge, or
Unlambda, but that's their point.

> >>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.
>
> so if i say that the test could be run for 1, 2 or something else
> seconds, it is the human sense of time that stops us from
> having a value of 30 (or up to 60) instead of 1 or 2?
>
> this is surprising. i would not have expected that.

"...and how we end up designing OSes and machines in practice..."

> how should i formulate my willingness to let the test take 1, 2 or
> something else seconds, so that it is possible for those with a human
> sense of time to understand that i am willing to use other number of
> seconds than 1 or 2? say 30 (up to 60) seconds?

Start measuring OS slicing spikes.

> >>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.
>
> now, i would not expect somebody that has a tone of writing
> that implies
> that he knows _the-answer_, to actually say that he has not looked
> thoroghly at what he is talking about. such a thing would make me
> unpleasantly surprised. i do not like beeing unpleasantly
> surprised. it is silly of me, but i know that already.

You misunderstand.  I looked, I did not see.  I am not confident we're
talking about the same kind of graph at all.  Show me exactly what
you're talking about on the Shootout.


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.