Posted by Patricia Shanahan on 11/17/07 14:28

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Would you go along if we change step 1 to "Patricia posts the links that
most strongly support Lew's case"?

I'm have been interested in computer performance for a long time, so I
want to get the performance aspect of this back to the issues, not
personalities.

Patricia

[Back to original message]