4 ms·
Another addendum, i'm not sure i'm getting what's happening here: If i calculate the average of the time perl took divided by the time ruby took, i get this:
by Mithaldu 14y ago
Another addendum, i'm not sure i'm getting what's happening here:
If i calculate the average of the time perl took divided by the time ruby took, i get this:
((226/724)+(5.35/16.8)+(3/9)+(2750/3960)+(1120/1368)+(3236/3837)+(30.5/35.8)+(939/618)+(263/135)+(662/214))/10
=
1.07
Which i understand to mean that perl on average took 7% longer.
-----
However if i turn this around i get:
((724/226)+(16.8/5.35)+(9/3)+(3960/2750)+(1368/1120)+(3837/3236)+(35.8/30.5)+(618/939)+(135/263)+(214/662))/10
=
1.58
Which i interpret to mean that Ruby took, on average, 58% longer.
------
These things contradict and i made some mistake here. Can you clear up what i should've been doing?
- igouy 14y ago>> i made some mistake here << The table you don't understand shows the median but you seem to be calculating the arithmetic mean.
- Mithaldu 14y agoOk, i don't get it. Can you show me the formula i should be using? Or even better: Try to explain in detail why on the overview page perl is claimed to be slower than Ruby, when in a direct comparison it is not.
- igouy 14y agoYou don't know how to calculate the median? http://www.robertniles.com/stats/median.shtml http://www.robertniles.com/stats/median.shtml
- Mithaldu 14y agoEnglish is not my primary languages and especially english maths are hard for me to grasp. That's why i am asking you to demonstrate, using the actual numbers for Ruby and Perl, what calculations should be performed to gain the numbers your site is showing. Also, in addition, after reading your link, the situation seems even worse. Using the median Perl outperforms Ruby by ~15%, but the main site does not reflect that at all.