🚀 go-pugleaf

>From: dave@onfcanim.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
>Subject: Re: 01/31/87 Dhrystone Results and Source
>
>Does it bother anyone else that the dhrystone benchmark is
>sometimes (if TIME instead of TIMES is used) based on execution
>time of a small number of seconds, measured to the nearest second?
>
>Many of the faster machines execute the benchmark in 10 seconds or less,
>giving a result that may have +- 10% error.  Doesn't it then seem silly
>to quote "dhrystones" as 4-figure numbers?

This is a problem with any "improving" single-figure of merit.  You can
certainly bring in all the statistical tools you want (you did not use
the word variance or SD), but it won't solve the problem, statistics
won't solve the problem.  We have to go back to a time when it was
believed that measurement was not a statistical issue [I've had rocks
thrown at me when I've said this in the past, and I know their read
this].  So, no, it no longer bothers me.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

P.S. Are there any fishermen (fisherhumans) on comp.arch? Does anybody
know where I can get one of those gag fishing rules to measure your fish
longer than they really are?