Code Inflation [pdf]

Re:Code Inflation [pdf] by function_seven on Friday April 17, 2015 @11:41PM (#9398234)

I just repeated your test, but got opposite results:

    $ time /usr/bin/true

    real 0m0.003s
    user 0m0.001s
    sys	 0m0.002s

    $ time /usr/bin/truth

    real 0m0.001s
    user 0m0.000s
    sys	 0m0.001s

I can't imagine for the life of me how an empty file could perform worse than an actual binary, but there's gotta be a reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code Inflation [pdf] by cpwright on Friday April 17, 2015 @11:51PM (#9398248)

If you're relying on an empty binary, or exit 0; instead of an actual binary you have to execute a shell process to evaluate it. The binary doesn't need to load a shell, it can just do a bit of setup, then make a single exit 0 system call.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code Inflation [pdf] by function_seven on Saturday April 18, 2015 @05:04PM (#9401030)

Thank you. That makes sense. So basically the empty file is seen by the shell as a "script" that has to be evaluated, so a separate shell process is spun up to handle it? And the difference between my output and the parent's has to do with some difference in our environments?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code Inflation [pdf] by logicallee on Saturday April 18, 2015 @08:35AM (#9399216)

this is what happens when we aren't allowed to use p values anymore :)

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/psychology-journal-bans...

The default p is p = 0.5, so I have no trouble accepting both your conclusion and your parent's :)

seriously though, this is why we use significance testing in real fields, like computer science...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Code Inflation [pdf] by greggyb on Saturday April 18, 2015 @05:33PM (#9401148)

Exactly. I did the most naive thing possible and only once for each version of true/truth. I was just bored/curious.

[ Parent | on HN ]