3 ms·
> You can choose which program measurements to compare. Yes, but the website also chooses, and it is the website's choice that I think is bad. Also, it doesn't
by pron 8y ago
> You can choose which program measurements to compare.
Yes, but the website also chooses, and it is the website's choice that I think is bad. Also, it doesn't seem like the game even has comparable programs in some/many/most cases.
> You have not shown that is what that website does.
How can I show what a website doesn't do? If you think they say what the hypothesis is, show me. I haven't been able to find it.
> Program X measured less than Program Y.
First of all, when something means nothing other than itself, we say it has no meaning. If the comparisons on the website are meant to suggest nothing more than just their own definition, then they are meaningless.
Also -- come on. The website presents comparisons for specific choices of X and Y. What is the meaning of the choice and the resulting comparison? Your position that it's not meant to mean anything (other than itself), sounds disingenuous because the website still makes some very specific choices that seem to hint at a meaning (e.g. why not compare the second fastest programs between languages instead of the fastest?) yet the meaning is never explained.
Anyway, we're going in circles.
- igouy 8y ago> … comparable programs… For someones definition of "comparable". > How can I show what a website doesn't do? You can try to show your claim — "… chooses to present data in some aggregate way that seems to defy any familiar forms of aggregation and reasoning…" — has some basis in reality. > … when something means nothing other than itself, we say it has no meaning. That may be what you say. Show why we should think that's what people interested in "Why did Clojure gain so much popularity?" would say. > … why not compare the second fastest programs between languages instead of the fastest? Inexplicable! Or obvious: there would need to be two programs for each, rather than one. > Anyway, we're going in circles. I agree, you repeat your assertions without establishing anything.