Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!noao!ncar!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks
Subject: Re: benchmark evaluations
Message-ID: <1990Dec12.070209.3272@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 12 Dec 90 07:02:09 GMT
References: <12220@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 22

In article <12220@hubcap.clemson.edu> mark@hubcap.clemson.edu (Mark Smotherman) writes:

>IMHO, "bc" only has compactness on its side, with representativeness
>questionable and reproducibility totally ruled out.  Why, then, is there
>continuing interest?

Because the group isn't moderated?

Because people don't have any other benchmarks to run?

Because people think benchmarking should be quick and easy?

I think on of the bad things about SPEC is that it's not easy to
obtain the source. This is good because it means people are a little
more careful when running it because they probably actually read the
instructions, but it's bad because random peons don't have a big list
of results for all systems, and they can't go run it on their favorite
off-brand of computer. And that's partially why there's interest in
running bc.

Of course, if they get most of their income by selling SPEC tapes, I
guess there's no choice but to not bite the hand that feeds SPEC.