[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: pidigits benchmark
- From: Isaac Gouy <igouy2@...>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
--- Mark Meijer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Except when it is the same as benchmarking those programming
> > themselves - when what appears to be an implementation in the
> > programming language just gets transformed into bindings to a
> > library - is it turtles all the way down?
> And I'm unimaginative ;-)
I hope you don't think it's nit-picking if I remind you that I said the
kind of complaint you made was unimaginative - afaik you may be the
Leonardo Da Vinci of the age ;-)
> Sure you can argue that everything is
> ultimately native, since everything ultimately translates to
> instructions being executed on your CPU.
Not what I meant - I've been told by the implementer that the
apparently "pure" arbitrary precision arithmetic in one language
implementation really is just a sequence of GMP calls.
> Granted, it can be hard to
> draw the line (or impossible, processors exist that execute java
> bytecode in hardware, for example). But I still think running
> benchmarks of algorithms written completely in a native compiled
> library, tells me more about that library than the language used to
> invoke it.
If the library is a constant factor, why would this tell us more about
the library than the (variable factor) language used to invoke it?
> > I like to see both ;-)
> Then you agree the distinction I made is a valid one.
iirc my objection was to "what is the point" and "kinda silly".