4 ms·

> you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific. No! I think this is a very useful project

> you’re using that assumption to cast slippery-slope doubt on the whole project without knowing anything specific. No! I think this is a very useful project and analysis. I just think that some languages might have extremely optimized versions (or possibly more likely, some languages don't quite yet have that extremely optimized version that has propagated throughout the others) and that might be affecting specific languages in the analysis. I think the first 5-10 entries are probably very accurate, as they are generally with very performance centric and often optimized for performance languages. As the languages and VMs/interpreters do more and are optimized less, it's much easier to miss a performance difference caused by an benchmark submission and attribute it to an inherent aspect of the language. > I am at least giving benefit of the doubt and wondering what might be wrong with TypeScript. I did no such thing. Note how I used the phrases "Theoretically, I would assume" and "That looks suspiciously like". I simply raised an issue of concern, in a way where it was obvious that I did not know if my concern was correct, and wondered that if it was, what else it might affect.

dahart 8y ago
> I did not know if my concern was correct, and wondered if it was, what else it might affect. That’s exactly what I mean by casting doubt. If the concern might not be correct, why lead into speculation about further concerns? Let’s find out what the actual reason that TypeScript is measured slower, rather than guess as what else could be wrong if unverified theoretical assumptions might be correct.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > rather than guess as what else could be wrong if unverified theoretical assumptions might be correct. You mean, I should not have explored the ramifications of what my suspicions might mean to so people might think it's worth actually looking into? What's wrong with that? I can't help but feel that you feel compelled to defend your original position that I believe was based on a misinterpreting my point and intention. I saw what I believed might be a problem. I noted it. I noted why. I noted what it might mean to the analysis because if my suspicion as to the reason was correct, it might not be isolated and other items might need a closer look. I did so in a way where I was sure not to claim something as factual when I wasn't certain. What part of that do you think is an inaccurate assessment of what I did or was unwarranted? Edit: Changed misconstruing to misinterpreting, as that's what I was trying to express, and misconstruing might be interpreted as a purposeful action, which is not what I was trying to express.
  - igouy 8y ago
    You saw what you believed might be a problem. You did not investigate whether or not it was a problem. Instead you speculated about what it might mean to the analysis. The part that was unwarranted was the negative speculation.
  - igouy 8y ago
    You seem not to have considered the possibility that the authors may have simply made a mistake, unrelated to the origin of the programs. The authors presented at an Oct 2017 conference. Archived benchmarks game web-pages from 2017 do not show the 10x fannkuch-redux differences that the authors report -- https://web.archive.org/web/20170918163900/http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/typescript.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170918163900/http://benchmarks...
- pvg 8y ago
  You can look at their detailed data and sources here https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/home https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/ho... Many benchmarks have no TS implementations, TS/JS results are about the same except for fannkuch-redux which is about a zillion times slower in the TS implementation. When looking at that kind of massive discrepancy in similar languages with the same runtime, the guess kbenson made was a perfectly sensible one. The authors of the study should have examined that kind of crazy outlier more closely and it's, as pointed out, not that unusual when using the benchmark game as a starting point.
  - igouy 8y ago
    > when using the benchmark game as a starting point. In fact, on the benchmarks game website, those same programs do not show a "massive discrepancy" -- https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/faster/typescript.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

dahart 8y ago

> I did not know if my concern was correct, and wondered if it was, what else it might affect. That’s exactly what I mean by casting doubt. If the concern might not be correct, why lead into speculation about further concerns? Let’s find out what the actual reason that TypeScript is measured slower, rather than guess as what else could be wrong if unverified theoretical assumptions might be correct.

kbenson 8y ago
> rather than guess as what else could be wrong if unverified theoretical assumptions might be correct. You mean, I should not have explored the ramifications of what my suspicions might mean to so people might think it's worth actually looking into? What's wrong with that? I can't help but feel that you feel compelled to defend your original position that I believe was based on a misinterpreting my point and intention. I saw what I believed might be a problem. I noted it. I noted why. I noted what it might mean to the analysis because if my suspicion as to the reason was correct, it might not be isolated and other items might need a closer look. I did so in a way where I was sure not to claim something as factual when I wasn't certain. What part of that do you think is an inaccurate assessment of what I did or was unwarranted? Edit: Changed misconstruing to misinterpreting, as that's what I was trying to express, and misconstruing might be interpreted as a purposeful action, which is not what I was trying to express.
- igouy 8y ago
  You saw what you believed might be a problem. You did not investigate whether or not it was a problem. Instead you speculated about what it might mean to the analysis. The part that was unwarranted was the negative speculation.
- igouy 8y ago
  You seem not to have considered the possibility that the authors may have simply made a mistake, unrelated to the origin of the programs. The authors presented at an Oct 2017 conference. Archived benchmarks game web-pages from 2017 do not show the 10x fannkuch-redux differences that the authors report -- https://web.archive.org/web/20170918163900/http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/typescript.html https://web.archive.org/web/20170918163900/http://benchmarks...
pvg 8y ago
You can look at their detailed data and sources here https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/home https://sites.google.com/view/energy-efficiency-languages/ho... Many benchmarks have no TS implementations, TS/JS results are about the same except for fannkuch-redux which is about a zillion times slower in the TS implementation. When looking at that kind of massive discrepancy in similar languages with the same runtime, the guess kbenson made was a perfectly sensible one. The authors of the study should have examined that kind of crazy outlier more closely and it's, as pointed out, not that unusual when using the benchmark game as a starting point.
- igouy 8y ago
  > when using the benchmark game as a starting point. In fact, on the benchmarks game website, those same programs do not show a "massive discrepancy" -- https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/faster/typescript.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...