From: Larry M. <lm...@bi...> - 2011-03-25 16:09:35
|
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:06:29PM +0000, tpo...@gm... wrote: > On Mar 25, 2011 7:49am, miguel sofer <mig...@gm...> wrote: >> I can now document my misgivings about tclbench: it is too noisy. It >> may be suitable for some comparisons, but its value as a guide for >> optimization work is at least doubtful. > > > I for one would be in favor of adding a set of application benchmarks to > tclbench. How optimization X or tweak Y > really effects *my* application is always the most important factor for > *me*. Having a set of representative applications is > probably the next best thing, as long as enough problem domains are > covered. I would probably want benchmark > apps that cover: > > - computationally intensive > - i/o intensive > - symbol manipulation > - data parsing I think langbench has all of that, has stable numbers, and does it for tcl, perl, ruby, python, and L. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com |