------art_19431_10386275.1144181324253
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > On 4/4/06, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > > > On 3/31/06, sullivanz.pku / gmail.com <sullivanz.pku / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > This might be a stupid question, but I really wonder if ruby is
> much
> > > > > slower than python and perl.
> > > > Try it. And ignore anyone who tells you to look at the utterly
> useless
> > > > Alioth shootout. It doesn't model anything real-world and doesn't
> > > > actually tell you anything about performance for your problems.
> > > >
> > > > I haven't checked in a while, but they weren't very honest about
> their
> > > > aims last time I checked, either. It's simply a matter of
> > > > self-promotion and comparison for Inane Gullibles.
> > > "I haven't checked in a while..."
> > > Then your comments would apply to the Alioth shootout in... 2004?
> >
> > 2005. I avoid the shootout like the plague, until you pop up and
> > pretend that your pet project has any relevance to anything.
> >
> > > There's nothing wrong with saying how little can be learned from
> > > measuring small programs, but saying don't look suggests there's
> > > something to be hidden.
> >
> > No, saying "don't look" says that your aims are bogus, your tests are
> > worse, your validation is nonsensical to nonexistent, and your
> > presentation is dishonest.
> >
> > Saying "don't look" says that the Alioth shootout isn't worth the
> > server space it takes up. It's certainly not worth the amount of
> > pimping you do for it.
> >
> > -austin
> > --
> > Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
> >                * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca
>
> And you believe all that without even looking - truly remarkable!
>
> (I suppose there are people who make judgements about Ruby without
> looking.)


I've looked at your site, nearly every time you've come in posting specific
benchmarks about something or other.  I think its current incarnation is by
far the worst.  You use certain performance and code characteristics, but
instead of quantifying the actual values in the comparisons (only in the
individual listings) you list them as, X is Y times better/worse than Z.
That tells me next to nothing.  1.1 times faster means very little at 10ms,
but quite a lot at 1hr.  While I don't always agree with Austin's attitude
towards this subject, I do agree that the site is rarely useful, and often
causes people to mis-represent a given statistic.


--
===Tanner Burson===
tanner.burson / gmail.com
http://tannerburson.com   <---Might even work one day...

------art_19431_10386275.1144181324253--