>>Since most benchmarks are unscientific, this one is as good as any.<<
>1) You seem to be using "unscientific" as a nothing more than an insult.
More like preemptively declaring I don't want to deal with HN crowd replying with "but benchmarks are worthless".
> 2) Your conclusion "this one is as good as any" doesn't follow from your premise that "most benchmarks are unscientific" -- "this one" might well be different from "most benchmarks".
IMO shootout benchmarks are better than random benchmarks on the web as they detail the testing environment, provide the source code and can be re-created
>1) You seem to be using "unscientific" as a nothing more than an insult.
More like preemptively declaring I don't want to deal with HN crowd replying with "but benchmarks are worthless".
> 2) Your conclusion "this one is as good as any" doesn't follow from your premise that "most benchmarks are unscientific" -- "this one" might well be different from "most benchmarks".
IMO shootout benchmarks are better than random benchmarks on the web as they detail the testing environment, provide the source code and can be re-created