Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!haven!umbc3!menkar!bruce From: bruce@menkar.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: Mosaic Benchmark on other platforms Message-ID: <3121@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> Date: 12 Apr 90 20:56:41 GMT References: <2110@kiwi.mpr.ca> <276@eiffel.UUCP> <54007@microsoft.UUCP> <4083@tukki.jyu.fi> <54060@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: newspost@umbc3.UMBC.EDU Reply-To: bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bruce Mount) Followup-To: comp.lang.eiffel Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Lines: 27 In article <54060@microsoft.UUCP> jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK) writes: >[Stuff deleted] >I don't consider it apples and oranges to compare two languages as >they are actually used. To compare "apples to apples" is one to >gin up a hashed dispatcher in C++ to slow it down enough to compare to >Smalltalk dispatching? Yes it does, if hashed dispatching is part of your application. The point of a benchmark is to compare different platforms (languages or hardware), not different implementations. It is up to the reader to determine if the benchmark applies to their application. The Mosaic Benchmark compares a few specific features---this was freely admitted by the author---not the whole range of OO activity. I agree with the poster that stated that a more comprehensive benchmark would be invaluble (testing dynamic binding, etc), however, this does not diminish the value of the Mosaic benchmarch. Rather than griping about the Mosaic benchmark, why don't we all think of a more comprehensive one(s)? --Bruce ================================================= | Bruce Mount "Brevity is best" | | bruce@atria.gsfc.nasa.gov | =================================================