> people sort of chant "microbenchmarks are useless", but they aren't useless. They might be ! (They aren't necessarily useless. It depends. It depends what o

> people sort of chant "microbenchmarks are useless", but they aren't useless. They might be ! (They aren't necessarily useless. It depends. It depends what one is looking for. It depends etc etc) > You can't divide one language's microbenchmark on this test by another to get a "Python is 160x slower than C". Sure you can ! https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/performance/comparable.html#geometric-mean https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... — and — Table 4, page 139 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3687997.3695638 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3687997.3695638 — and then one has — "[A] Python is 160x slower than C" not "[THE] Python is 160x slower than C". Something multiple and tentative not something singular and definitive.