3 ms·
>>Since most benchmarks are unscientific, this one is as good as any.<< 1) You seem to be using "unscientific" as a nothing more than an insult. 2) Your concl
by igouy 14y ago
>>Since most benchmarks are unscientific, this one is as good as any.<<
1) You seem to be using "unscientific" as a nothing more than an insult.
2) Your conclusion "this one is as good as any" doesn't follow from your premise that "most benchmarks are unscientific" -- "this one" might well be different from "most benchmarks".
3) If your conclusion was correct then that wouldn't mean that the benchmark was good, just that it was also bad.
- irahul 14y ago>>Since most benchmarks are unscientific, this one is as good as any.<< >1) You seem to be using "unscientific" as a nothing more than an insult. More like preemptively declaring I don't want to deal with HN crowd replying with "but benchmarks are worthless". > 2) Your conclusion "this one is as good as any" doesn't follow from your premise that "most benchmarks are unscientific" -- "this one" might well be different from "most benchmarks". IMO shootout benchmarks are better than random benchmarks on the web as they detail the testing environment, provide the source code and can be re-created
- igouy 14y ago>>More like preemptively declaring I don't want to deal with HN crowd replying with "but benchmarks are worthless"<< It's a dirty job but it still has to be done ;-) Let them reply and then answer them.