5 ms·

> Is that what the presentation emphasizes most? Yes, because that's what the site shows most prominently: comparisons between languages. The fact that the ex

by pron 8y ago

> Is that what the presentation emphasizes most? Yes, because that's what the site shows most prominently: comparisons between languages. The fact that the explanations to the benchmarks basically say that these comparisons mean nothing doesn't make the comparisons mean much more than nothing, especially as there's no explanation to what the comparisons do (or are supposed to) mean. So in addition to having no hypothesis, no analysis and no exposition, there's a notice saying, don't use these comparisons for so and so. Then what are those comparisons for? Again, I don't think the game's comparisons are worse than many other benchmark comparisons out there, but that doesn't make it good. What's unfortunate is that unlike those other benchmarks, they have a lot of data that could be used for some really cool stuff (not to compare languages). It's possible that the language competition is meant to encourage more people to submit and show how their favorite language wins, but there's no information about the market aspects. > See, for programs with runtimes of 4s and 20s, 1/10ths of a second… ! I run a toy benchmark that's the same size as the game's, and HotSpot's C2 gives me a 30-50% boost after ~10s. It really varies by program (not by problem). This tends to be worse for programs that use a lot of parallelism and aren't configured to run compilation in blocking mode, because then the application threads compete with the compilation threads, but again, there isn't really a good rule of thumb here. In any event, it is simply wrong that C2 would never yield significant performance boosts after a few tenths of a second, even on small programs (it may be true for some specific benchmark entries and maybe even all current ones, it may vary by JDK version, and it definitely varies on whether HotSpot uses Graal or C2). Although, given all the other serious problems that render the comparisons mostly meaningless (different algorithms), my guess would be that this effect is smaller by comparison. Still, there's a lot of cool stuff the game could do with the current programs (and historical ones), but comparing languages is not really one of them.

igouy 8y ago
> … what the site shows most prominently… Program after Program after Program. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/nbody.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/measurements/java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/program/nbody-java-5.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Of course, it's really not possible to show any computer program which is not written in a programming language. > … basically say that these comparisons mean nothing … Obviously not: please don't put your words in others' mouths. > … a lot of data that could be used for some really cool stuff… Take the data and do that really cool stuff. https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame > … but there's no information about the market aspects. What do you mean by "market aspects" ? > …it may be true for some specific benchmark entries and maybe even all current ones… So it would be wrong to try to dismiss those measurements, based on nothing more than extrapolation about how some other toy benchmark program might perform. > … cool stuff the game could do … You're allowed your own personal opinion about what's cool and what isn't (and no doubt others will have their own personal opinion).
- pron 8y ago
  > Obviously not It's certainly not obvious to me what they comparisons mean (is it obvious to you?) and the authors of the site don't even state, let alone support, a hypothesis. They just say what the comparisons don't mean. So unless it's a work of art, I think observers can be forgiven for thinking it doesn't mean anything. > What do you mean by "market aspects"? I mean a hypothesis about "free market competition" driving people to write really fast programs. > You're allowed your own personal opinion about what's cool and what isn't True, but I meant something that could be used in a more rigorous/meaningful way (e.g. comparisons where only one variable changes). Meaning is perhaps also subjective, but I don't even know the subjective opinion of the meaning behind the game, because the site doesn't say. > https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame Cool. Anyway, now that I've taken a slightly closer look, I realize I spoke too soon when I said that the SBCL vs. Java benchmark is "better than nothing." If, say, Java uses parallelism while SBCL doesn't, then if Java is 4x faster that may not be a "better than nothing" indication.
  - igouy 8y ago
    > not obvious to me Program X measured less than Program Y. > … comparisons where only one variable changes… Seems like your idea of a comparison, between for-example Lisp and Java programs, would require writing all the Lisp programs as if they were being written in Java. (We used up our "one variable change" with SBCL instead-of OpenJDK). > I spoke too soon You chose to summarize data: "Java outperforms SBCL by a very wide margin -- 1.25-4x faster". Do you mean that you made mistakes when you made your summary.
    - pron 8y ago
      > Program X measured less than Program Y. That's like asking what does a program do and being told, "it does what the code says." Technically true, but not what we mean when we ask. Also, I don't think that's really what the site's authors thought. After all, when I click on the Haskell page, I don't see a comparison of Haskell programs, but a comparison of the fastest Haskell program with the fastest Java program. It's not obvious to me what that means, or even that it means anything at all. > Seems like your idea of a comparison, between for-example Lisp and Java programs, would require writing all the Lisp programs as if they were being written in Java. (We used up our "one variable change" with SBCL instead-of OpenJDK). That's exactly right, but because that's rather tedious, I would present just meaningful comparisons rather than non-meaningful ones, so no inter-language comparisons. I'm not saying they're always meaningless, but they can't be made with the data currently available on that site. Unfortunately, we cannot manufacture (non-fictitious) meaning out of data as we like. > Do you mean that you made mistakes when you made your summary. Yes. By "better than nothing" I overestimated the significance of results, at least in this case. After a closer look I realized that different programs use different algorithms, and so the comparison tells me nothing about the relative speed of those languages.

by pron 8y ago

igouy 8y ago

> … what the site shows most prominently… Program after Program after Program. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/nbody.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/measurements/java.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/program/nbody-java-5.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Of course, it's really not possible to show any computer program which is not written in a programming language. > … basically say that these comparisons mean nothing … Obviously not: please don't put your words in others' mouths. > … a lot of data that could be used for some really cool stuff… Take the data and do that really cool stuff. https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame > … but there's no information about the market aspects. What do you mean by "market aspects" ? > …it may be true for some specific benchmark entries and maybe even all current ones… So it would be wrong to try to dismiss those measurements, based on nothing more than extrapolation about how some other toy benchmark program might perform. > … cool stuff the game could do … You're allowed your own personal opinion about what's cool and what isn't (and no doubt others will have their own personal opinion).

pron 8y ago
> Obviously not It's certainly not obvious to me what they comparisons mean (is it obvious to you?) and the authors of the site don't even state, let alone support, a hypothesis. They just say what the comparisons don't mean. So unless it's a work of art, I think observers can be forgiven for thinking it doesn't mean anything. > What do you mean by "market aspects"? I mean a hypothesis about "free market competition" driving people to write really fast programs. > You're allowed your own personal opinion about what's cool and what isn't True, but I meant something that could be used in a more rigorous/meaningful way (e.g. comparisons where only one variable changes). Meaning is perhaps also subjective, but I don't even know the subjective opinion of the meaning behind the game, because the site doesn't say. > https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame Cool. Anyway, now that I've taken a slightly closer look, I realize I spoke too soon when I said that the SBCL vs. Java benchmark is "better than nothing." If, say, Java uses parallelism while SBCL doesn't, then if Java is 4x faster that may not be a "better than nothing" indication.
- igouy 8y ago
  > not obvious to me Program X measured less than Program Y. > … comparisons where only one variable changes… Seems like your idea of a comparison, between for-example Lisp and Java programs, would require writing all the Lisp programs as if they were being written in Java. (We used up our "one variable change" with SBCL instead-of OpenJDK). > I spoke too soon You chose to summarize data: "Java outperforms SBCL by a very wide margin -- 1.25-4x faster". Do you mean that you made mistakes when you made your summary.
  - pron 8y ago
    > Program X measured less than Program Y. That's like asking what does a program do and being told, "it does what the code says." Technically true, but not what we mean when we ask. Also, I don't think that's really what the site's authors thought. After all, when I click on the Haskell page, I don't see a comparison of Haskell programs, but a comparison of the fastest Haskell program with the fastest Java program. It's not obvious to me what that means, or even that it means anything at all. > Seems like your idea of a comparison, between for-example Lisp and Java programs, would require writing all the Lisp programs as if they were being written in Java. (We used up our "one variable change" with SBCL instead-of OpenJDK). That's exactly right, but because that's rather tedious, I would present just meaningful comparisons rather than non-meaningful ones, so no inter-language comparisons. I'm not saying they're always meaningless, but they can't be made with the data currently available on that site. Unfortunately, we cannot manufacture (non-fictitious) meaning out of data as we like. > Do you mean that you made mistakes when you made your summary. Yes. By "better than nothing" I overestimated the significance of results, at least in this case. After a closer look I realized that different programs use different algorithms, and so the comparison tells me nothing about the relative speed of those languages.