Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!netsys!ames!eos!eugene
From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Benchmarking
Message-ID: <1742@eos.UUCP>
Date: 15 Oct 88 08:39:13 GMT
References: <2220003@hpausla.HP.COM> <46500026@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <1988Oct9.011633.13259@utzoo.uucp> <6001@june.cs.washington.edu> <6005@june.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 29

In article <6005@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes:
>rik@june.cs.washington.edu (Rik Littlefield) writes:
>>[ large "real" program benchmarks vs. synthetic benchmarks ]
>
>Oh, gee, an opportunity to apply the scientific method :-)
>
>(a) Benchmark a bunch of computer systems (hardware/os/compiler)
>    using synthetic benchmarks.
>(b) Compare the benchmark performance to observations in the
>    "real" world.
>(c) Learn something about benchmarks, refine your synthetic
>    benchmarks.
>(d) go to (a)   (Oh no, not a GOTO!)

I am sorry.

I don't see the scientific method in this.  I don't see a theory,
a hypothesis, a controlled experiment, nor even a control. 8-)
Actually, don't worry, I get this all the time from the other
"real" sciences myself.  I do see the beginnings of empirical work.
Better luck next time.

Another gross generalization from

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
  resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
  "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
  {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."