Talk:Image noise: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
: But why is that information requested anyway? Inter-language performance differences have never been the point of RC… –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 16:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
: But why is that information requested anyway? Inter-language performance differences have never been the point of RC… –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 16:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::OK. That's true. FPS is very hardware-dependent. We could test all examples in only 1 computer. Perfomance differences are not really point of RC. But we can still compare language perfomance, I think it's a good idea. --[[User:Guga360|Guga360]] 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
::OK. That's true. FPS is very hardware-dependent. We could test all examples in only 1 computer. Perfomance differences are not really point of RC. But we can still compare language perfomance, I think it's a good idea. --[[User:Guga360|Guga360]] 16:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::I still think the FPS should be rethought; Do you really want to set up the test on one computer; will then install 12 different C-compilers, LabView, etc.? Learning all compiler flags, libraries, etc? |
|||
:::For me RC is more about the languages and in this task compiled languages that fits nicely into the CPU’s cache (ex. PureBasic, C++, etc.) will excel, while in a task where we communicate with a web-server and spend ~99.99% of the time waiting all languages will be equal fast. If performance should be a part of RC it should in some way be standardized before so that we have one common way to compare it – bad data is often much worse the no data. --[[User:Jofur|<Jofur>]] 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||