|
|
Posted by Patricia Shanahan on 11/17/07 06:42
Lew wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> You have long ago become tiresome.
>
> You're right, I shouldn't have gone there.
>
>> And no, I don't place any trust in any of them because they didn't lay
>> out detailed conditions for the test. There is not enough information
>> in any of them to determine how valid the test was.
>
> Some of those sites laid out source code for their tests. How much more
> detailed does it get? They also laid out things like what the hardware
> was, what parameters they used to compile the C++ code or run the JVM,
> what other loads if any were on the computers, what the exact results were.
....
May I suggest a constructive approach to analyzing the issues:
1. Lew pick and post links to one or two benchmark reports that he feels
most strongly support his case, and are most defensible.
2. Jerry comment on whether, if sufficiently documented and
reproducible, the benchmarks would mean what Lew claims they mean.
3. Jerry comment on what, if any, specific information is missing that
would be required for reproducibility.
Once that is done, it should be possible to contact the authors and ask
about any missing data. Was it collected? If so, can it be posted?
Patricia
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|