From: "Brian Schröder" <ruby.brian@...>
Date: 2005-09-11T17:07:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Better Random benchmark - need help with profiling

On 11/09/05, Martin Jansson <martialis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 21:34:44 +0200, Brian Schr�der <ruby.brian@gmail.com>
> [snip]
> 
> Shroeder! What version of Ruby do you use?
> 

$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.3 (2005-06-23) [i486-linux]


> I did something similar in one of my many versions. And it is the oo thing
> to do.
> (I haven't actually benchmarked puts vs printf, I will do that ;)
> 
> It's not faster on my system. That may be proof that profiling is a bad
> thing and that we all should prove our code mathematically (shudder).

If you look at the benchmark I provided, it is a bit slower on my
system too. But it is a lot prettier IMHO. I just tried rewriting the
thing in nice ruby, because thats what ruby is for. Otherwise just
write a c extension and do

require 'random.so"
or even better just use the builtin mersenne twister (Kernel#rand)



> [snip]
> 
> I have a lot of white noise on my system, so I haven't used Rubys
> benchmark thingie much. It would be more useful to me if it could do
> matched pair sampling (is that the correct English term?) and/or throw
> away extreme values.
> 

If the noise is really white, you just need to sample often enough. It
will average out.

hope to help,

Brian

-- 
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/

Stringed instrument chords: http://chordlist.brian-schroeder.de/