On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:48:23AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 2005-03-14, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:16AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> >> I'm sorry-- I could have made this more productive by posting my own
> >> Benchmark
> >> code in the
On 2005-03-14, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:16AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> I'm sorry-- I could have made this more productive by posting my own
>> Benchmark
>> code in the first place. Look what happens when cmpthese is used. The
>> results look
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:16AM +, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> I'm sorry-- I could have made this more productive by posting my own Benchmark
> code in the first place. Look what happens when cmpthese is used. The
> results look nonsensical to me:
Hmm. I guess the comparison isn't taking into a
On 2005-03-13, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We can just check.
>
> $ perl -MBenchmark -wle 'timethis(10, sub { `perl -wle "rand for 1..100"`
> })'
> timethis 10: 11 wallclock secs ( 0.01 usr 0.00 sys + 8.64 cusr 0.14 csys =
> 8.79 CPU) @ 1000.00/s (n=10)
>
> So the tim
Hola!
I'd just like to mention that the development methodologies Pugs
goes by are those of the test driven school (and test development is
golf driven ;-).
Anywho, since it's interesting from a QA perspective, and it's perl
(sort of), I thought it might be a good idea to try and lure you
guys in
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 09:04:03PM +0100, Francisco Olarte Sanz wrote:
> I've checked the Benchmark module docs, and it's not too clear ( for me
> ),
> but I think they measure user/system time of your proccess. If you are
> executing external code via system/backticks etc.. this is normal
On Sunday 13 March 2005 00:43, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > There is also a benchmarking module cunningly named "Benchmark" which you
> > should have a look at.
> Now now, I mentioned in the message I looked at 'Benchmark' first and it
> didn't work. I got the sense it might have only been timing the
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 02:55:29PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> sounds like a plan :)
Yuk yuk.
> I haven't look at the innards in a while, but do you think the
> infrastructure is there in Test::Builder to support this now? the last time
> I checked I had to jump through some hoops to get an
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>>well, this syntax doesn't exist in Test::More at the moment (though I
>>probably should get around to a patch like I promised) - it's only in
>>Apache-Test.
>
>
> For the record, there's no reason wh
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:41:08PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
> well, this syntax doesn't exist in Test::More at the moment (though I
> probably should get around to a patch like I promised) - it's only in
> Apache-Test.
For the record, there's no reason why Test::More has to be the one to decla
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 2005-03-13, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion about a feature
>>that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More toolkit but was brought up
>>because Apache-Test's plan() works a bit differently and t
Ian Langworth wrote:
> On 12.Mar.2005 11:41PM -0500, Geoffrey Young wrote:
>
>
>>nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion
>>about a feature that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More
>>toolkit but was brought up because Apache-Test's plan() works
>>a bit differently and t
On 2005-03-13, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> nevertheless, what you are replying to was just a discussion about a feature
> that doesn't exist in the standard Test::More toolkit but was brought up
> because Apache-Test's plan() works a bit differently and there are enough
> people w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Sunday 13 March 2005 00:43, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:29:32PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Well, if you're just going to look at the wall clock, why use the
> > shell?
>
> Err...because I forgot about the simple 'time' com
On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 03:29:32PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Well, if you're just going to look at the wall clock, why use the shell?
Err...because I forgot about the simple 'time' command?
> my $start_time = time;
> `$bin diff 1/1 2>&1`;
> my $end_time = time;
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
