Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl: the Markov chain saw

Comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

If you recognise a few realities, benchmarks get a lot easier and far more accurate:

  1. Perl is a dynamic language;

    eval is a dishinguishing characteristic and a useful tool.

  2. Benchmarks are not production code;

    Failure to adhere to any theoretical best practices or production code standards, does not prevent them from serving their purpose.

  3. The perl feature that allows the non-block forms of map & grep is very powerful.
  4. The benchmark module wraps the code(ref) supplied, in an extra layer of subroutine.

    It does this in an attempt to allow it to subtract the overhead added by the benchmarking process, from the timing of the code being tested.

    All of this good work is completely negated when:

    • you write a benchmark that first wraps the code being tested, in a named subroutine;
    • then wraps a call to that named subroutine, in an anonymous subroutine in order to pass a reference to the benchmark module.

      (Have they never heard of the \&subname syntax?)

    Thus, the timing produced by the module incorporate three levels of subroutine call, only one of which has been partially negated. This demonstrates the naivety of the author(s).

If you write the benchmark in 1064279 like this:

Not only do you avoid the three repetitions of which you complain, you also avoiding adding the overhead of three levels of function call to each piece of code being tested; and thus produce a far more accurate timing of the important code.

It is simple, clear, concise and DRY; and works *now*, just as it always has.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

In reply to Re: RFC extending to facilitate CODEHASHREF by BrowserUk
in thread RFC extending to facilitate CODEHASHREF by LanX

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":

  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
  • Log In?

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    and all is quiet...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others meditating upon the Monastery: (7)
    As of 2017-09-25 18:11 GMT
    Find Nodes?
      Voting Booth?
      During the recent solar eclipse, I:

      Results (287 votes). Check out past polls.