Comments

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 07:21:40

  "As you may have seen in my second comment, I started checking some of the other tests and the Mandelbrot test for example is still a clear victor over the C# implementation. I even tried rewriting the C# Mandelbrot test to be an exact port of the Java implementation in case that made a difference, and still Java was 2x faster."
  
  I usually think "bashing" means "talking about the negative without acknowledging the positive".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 08:58:17

  Alex Brown too criticised MSO07 (not OOXML mind you) just before bashing ODF. Let's wait and see.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 09:09:05

  But the thing is, the criticisms he made of ODF weren't wrong: he's entirely right that basically no application outputs ISO standard ODF.
  
  It's entirely enlightening that you class negative remarks about OOXML as "criticism", but when they're about ODF they're "bashing".

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 10:07:53

  No, that's the disinformation. See Rob Weir's response to this.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 10:32:29

  Rob's response is inadequate because he uses the oasis files, not the ISO ones.
  
  Leaving aside the purely technical aspects of whether or not there are issues with the ISO ODF standard, which is Alex Brown's point, the inescapable fact is that apps like OpenOffice.org are using OASIS ODF 1.1 (which isn't ISO standardised), and 3.0 is using 1.2 which isn't even OASIS standardised yet.
  
  They all output stuff which isn't in the ISO standard, although it looks like OOo 3.0 might be gaining an option to output ISO standard files.
  
  Does it matter? Not really. Is Alex Brown wrong? No.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-19 12:34:28

  Roy: Do you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Mono developers or something?
  
  It seriously looks like you are desperate to prove how evil they are, you didn't even read the article.

• Xanadu

  2008-05-19 12:48:50

  I don't really get why would anyone jump to defend OOXML unless there were lame intentions behind. I specially would be skeptic if the same person that protects Mono because it is open source software made by innocent developers would also defend OOXML while attacking or echoing ODF attacks.
  
  It is sometimes too much of a coincidence, a person promoting Mono at the same time attacking ODF, defending OOXML and finally advocating Novell, and their deal. It looks like all those things come in the same package.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 13:10:42

  @Xanadu:
  
  It's just simply not so black and white. For example, Alex Brown criticised the ODF schema in its ISO 1.0 incarnation. What then did he do? He published a revision to the schema which he believes removes/fixes the problem.
  
  That's constructive criticism that helps ODF grow stronger. Calling it 'disinformation' or 'ODF bashing' just highlights bias and misunderstanding.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 13:38:30

  Alex, how much do you know about Brown's business? Have you followed the links? The man needs to justify poor recommendations that he made. He told the British Library to shove its huge assets right into vendor lock-in. Many people are absolutely furious over this, and rightly so.

• Roy Bixler

  2008-05-19 14:17:52

  Brown did make the rather bold claim that "there are no valid ISO ODF documents in the world." Rob Weir disproved that claim by coming up with a minimal valid ISO ODF (v. 1.0) document. Even if Weir's post didn't clear up all of the issues, such as that OpenOffice uses the Oasis version of ODF, his post did provide some needed clarification to Brown's claims.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 15:12:46

  @Roy B: indeed, that claim was wrong. He would have been better to say 'no valid non-trivial document' - it's basically impossible to avoid the schema problem in those instances.
  
  @Roy S: How much do I know about his business? How much do you know?
  
  "Don't believe everything you read on the Web, Karsten. As it happens I am not contracted to the British Library (there are some lies in circulation to the contrary for consumption by the credulous). Wish I was though - I believe they have a lot to gain from the expertise and technology my company offers!" -- Alex Brown, http://adjb.net/comments.php?y=08&m=04&entry=entry080409-221633
  
  So what recommendations, exactly, did he make to the British Library? What, exactly, does he need to justify?

• Maximus

  2008-05-19 15:29:49

  AlexH: So what's this developer's excuse for claiming that C# is faster than C?
  
  

  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is C# wiping the floor with C.

  
  
  There's no excuse for presenting falsified data like this.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 15:34:26

  @Maximus:
  
  So, you did that test yourself and you know the data is falsified?
  
  I really don't think so.
  
  I mean, good grief, it's well known that in certain circumstances dynamically compiled languages can outperform statically compiled languages. It's not just Mono/.net; Java is much faster than C in many well-known situations, see e.g. http://www.idiom.com/~zilla/Computer/javaCbenchmark.html

• Maximus

  2008-05-19 15:44:37

  I don't trust anything those Mono guys do. They are known to spread lies and work against the Free Software community. It's all well documented.
  
  I would test the results but I don't have Mono installed and I will never install it.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 15:47:09

  So, in short, you're calling him a liar even though you have no idea whether or not the data presented is correct. Nice.
  
  If I repeat the test would you believe me?

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 15:47:29

  Benchmarks are easy to tweak. Just ask analysts... or even Microsoft. They can show anything and I doubt Jeff's hypothesis is that Java beats Mono.
  
  In fact, Mono's bad reputation is that it's slow and heavy, so even if he shows parity, then he markets Mono.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 15:49:51

  Alex, you're biased too, IMHO, so replicating results won't do.

• AlexH

  2008-05-19 15:57:55

  Roy:
  
  That's a convenient excuse to ignore actual, repeatable, data.
  
  And actually, I imagine Jeff's hypothesis was that Java was faster than Mono. He said specifically he was looking for the bug in Mono that made it slower than Java - it just turned out that the data disproved his hypothesis.
  
  Of course, benchmarks are pretty meaningless. However, these weren't the Mono project's benchmarks - they were someone else's. So, what you're complaining about is actually "Mono project members improve their software" - how terrible of them!

• Miles

  2008-05-19 16:06:21

  And here we see the crux of the issue.
  
  The BoycottNovell bigots are always quick to accuse the other side of being liars, but are never willing to review the other sides evidence.
  
  Afraid you'll get proven wrong?
  
  How typical.

• Miles

  2008-05-19 16:12:00

  FWIW, I just ran the programs on my machine and got the following results (looks like my machine is slower than his, but the results more or less match up):
  
  [miles@localhost ~]$ time mono sumcol2.exe

• Miles

  2008-05-19 16:13:54

  FWIW, I just ran the programs on my machine and got the following results (looks like my machine is slower than his, but the results more or less match up):
  
  [miles@localhost ~]$ time mono sumcol2.exe < sumcol-input100000.txt 50000000
  
  real 0m3.799s user 0m3.476s sys 0m0.316s [miles@localhost ~]$ time ./sumcol < sumcol-input100000.txt 50000000
  
  real 0m18.303s user 0m18.001s sys 0m0.284s
  
  (sorry for the repost, had to html encode the less-than char)

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-19 20:39:25

  hehe, I love the comment on that guy's blog that quotes Princess Bride. Looks like it holds pretty true, too ;-)
  
  

  You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against fejj when parsers or I/O performance is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

  
  
  I might have to add his blog to my rss feed.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-19 22:58:26

  So Roy and Maximus - you gonna admit you were wrong? Or are you gonna provide some evidence that this developer is falsifying data?
  
  I'll be waiting.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 23:02:55

  Miles,
  
  All these things are implementation/program-dependent. One could prove almost everything that's desirable, so benchmarks are a more complex things than that. I'm a technical researcher and I know that peer review would scrutinize for exactly this reason. One quote that also comes to mind:
  
  "Microsoft did sponsor the benchmark testing and the NT server was better tuned than the Linux one."
  
  http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/enterprise/1999/9904221410.asp

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-19 23:06:07

  This benchmark test wasn't designed by the Mono guys.
  
  You are just trying to find excuses now, pretty pathetic.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-19 23:07:17

  Who ever claimed falsification of data?

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-19 23:29:40

  Maximus claimed falsified data and you claimed the guy's results couldn't be trusted (which suggests the same thing).
  
  You refused to run the tests yourself and so AlexH offered, to which you claimed he was biased and so results from his reproduction couldn't be trusted either.
  
  Are you now saying that you trust that the results are indeed accurate and that the guy's C# implementation was 6-7x faster than the fastest C implementation on the Debian Language Shootout site?

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-19 23:39:19

  FWIW, the developer's blog you quoted never once draws the conclusion that this test conclusively proves that Mono is faster than Java or C, he simply concludes the following:
  
  1. that the brain-dead ReadLine() + Int32.Parse() implementation of THIS PARTICULAR TEST in C#/Mono can run as fast as the same brain-dead ReadLine() + Integer.Parse() implementation in Java. (as in, comparing apples to apples)
  
  2. that he can write a much more optimized C# implementation that can outperform the fgets_unlocked() + atoi() implementation in C (which he successfully proved he could).
  
  You also misrepresent the facts when you claim that he was bashing Java. Nowhere in his blog post did he bash Java. Nowhere.
  
  You are scum for suggesting otherwise.

• Masato Naru

  2008-05-20 10:20:59

  I don't know what that Java-guy smoked before he performed his tests, but the results are false.
  
  Read here for: an failed attempt at reproducing his results, courtesy of Jeffrey Steadfast.: http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/debian-language-benchmarks-sumfile.html
  
  Before accusing Mr. Steadfast of an outright lie (which I espect of you anti-Mono extremists): The data is there, the source is there; compile it and reproduce before you make any such claims!

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-20 12:23:42

  What's his hypothesis? Remember: we're not talking about performance here. It's a distraction, a decoy. See:
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
  
  Care to explain what this means if one didn't pay Novell (Microsoft's software patent royalties)?

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-20 14:05:30

  What does Moonlight have to do with the tests?
  
  Nice try at changing the subject, Roy, but it was an epic fail.
  
  Even if Mono was the antichrist, it still wouldn't change the results of the tests.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-20 14:10:30

  The two are joined by the hip, to an extent licence-wise too. The eventual goal is to deliver applications, potentially over the NET and WPF seems to be inspiring the GNOME desktop these days.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-20 15:48:07

  Once again you failed to provide the connection between how the results of the tests he performed are affected in any way shape or form by Moonlight (Moonlight is not Mono and licenses do not change performance results... just in case you didn't realize that).

• Miles

  2008-05-20 18:24:16

  /bump - any updates on this?
  
  (actually, I'm just bumping to further humiliate Roy, but I can pretend that I'm actually interested, can't I?)

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-21 01:46:27

  Dan, the point to be made is that the issues we should deal with aren't to do with performance. They never were. We never said that Mono being slow is the issue, but marketing it (with the legal implications) at the expense of other PLs seems foolish and dangerous.

• Sampa Mutoku

  2008-05-21 11:13:04

  Don't try to wiggle yourself out of it. You arre just traying to bash Mono where ever your find it, using whatever means you think handy.
  
  This time you've chosen the 'speed/performance'-comparison as a tool, and you have failed miserably.
  
  Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a possible incarnation of a known (eet), pseudonymous, forever-nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-05-21 11:17:19

  Hi, 'eet'. Nice nymshift. Your IP gives it all away, never mind the obvious giveaways in your messages.

• Dan O'Brian

  2008-05-21 14:26:01

  I have to agree with the above poster - you are using this as an excuse to bash Mono while trying to play it off like the Mono guys are bashing Java.
  
  They aren't the ones bashing anyone, you are bashing them.

• JK

  2008-05-30 20:29:39

  His numbers are inconsistent by what is reported by a third-neutral party. Mono is slower than Java, at least for now, by a wide margin, according to the ranking http://tinyurl.com/lf82f