Posted by Lew on 11/17/07 05:56

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.

Then you come back with provably false comments like "they didn't lay out
detailed conditions for the test."

People can follow the links for themselves and judge. I laid out a
cross-section of benchmark sites and technical articles that explained the
techniques used to optimize JVMs, and btw, also the Microsoft CLR. For three
or four years technical experts have explained why the gap is narrower than
commonly supposed, and occasionally inverted. The JVMs have continued to
improve in that time.

For you to out-and-out mischaracterize the content of those benchmarks with
such patently contrafactual remarks is startling. Then you speak of
"intelligent conversation" - I don't dispute your intelligence at all.
However, I have provided much evidence and hard evidence at that, that the
issue of performance bears closer examination. I have been balanced in the
presentation, linking sites that show C++ being faster and under what
circumstances - as importantly, by how much. The numbers and conditions are
laid out in sufficient detail to make results duplicable. This quite aside
from industry-standard benchmarks like those from SPEC that also speak to
these matters.

If you're going to stick with Monty Pythoneque "No, it isn't" responses, at
least pick ones that won't fall apart the second anyone follows the benchmark
links provided upthread.

If hard evidence and real-life measurements don't fulfill your requirements
for "intelligent conversation" then you're pretty much SOL, you're right.

--
Lew

[Back to original message]