| > > And no I'm not interested in whatever benchmark you're going to want to post, > That's rude. It wasn't rude, it was predictive, and I predicted correctly. You literally ignored the second half of the sentence where I already explained why your incorrect conclusion is incorrect. Your logic makes perfect sense, in a world where I/O bound processes, JIT versus interpretation differences, garbage collection versus reference counting differences, etc., don't exist. But those things do exist in the real world, so if your logic doesn't include them, you're quite likely to be wrong. In general, an interpreted concurrent system is far too complex to make performance predictions about based only on logic, because your logic can't possibly include all the relevant variables. > No need for evidence or data driven techniques. Well, there's where you're wrong. It turns out that if you actually collect evidence through experimentation, you'll discover results that are not predicted by your logic. > Then you hilariously decided to dismiss it before i even presented it. Well, you presented basically what a predicted, so... I wasn't wrong. > But you seem perfectly comfortable in being rude and accusing me of making stuff up. I'm not comfortable in going around the internet and trashing other peoples theories with accusations that they are making shit up. If you disagree say it, I respect that. I don't respect the part where you're saying I'm making stuff up. You are, in fact, making stuff up. If you are offended by accurate description of your behavior, behave better. |
Hey Genius. Look at the test that the benchmark ran. The benchmark is IO bound. This is SPECIFIC test about IO bound processes. The benchmark is not referring to real world applications it is SPECIFICALLY referring to IO.
The literal test is thousands of requests and for each handler for those requests ALL it does is query a database. If you look at a single request almost 99% of time is spent on IO.
Due to the above, Anything that has to do with the python interpreter, JIT, garbage collection and reference counting becomes NEGLIGIBLE in the context of the TEST in the ARTICLE ABOVE. I suspect you didn't even read it completely.
Does that concept make sense to you? You can use relativity rather then newtonian physics to calculate the trajectory of a projectile BUT it is involves UNNECESSARY overhead coming from Relativity because the accuracy gained from the extra calculations ARE NEGLIGIBLE.
>You are, in fact, making stuff up. If you are offended by accurate description of your behavior, behave better.
Now that things have been explained completely clearly to you, do you now see how you are the one who is completely wrong or are you incapable of ever admitting your wrong and apologizing to me like you should? I mean literally that statement above is embarrassing once you get how wrong you are.