Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 11/17/07 14:16

Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> 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
>

Patricia,

Sorry, I'm done with Lew. Others in this thread have been reasonable.
Lew isn't.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]