The problem is that it is all too easy to write some trivial code, pop some timing in and come up with some numbers which are entirely meaningless. Whilst this might not sound obvious I motivate it via an example; you could (very easily) write a loop, grab the time on each iteration and then every second write out the number of iterations completed. However making claims based upon this would problematic for two reasons, firstly because such a simple code bears no relevance to more complex ones (bottlenecks are often mathematical operations, larger memory creation, memory accesses, control flow transitions across functions/procedures which are not being tested sufficiently here) and secondly because it is very easy to perform loop optimisation over simple loops which, if it is being performed in BASIC, as Keith mentioned entirely nullifies the point about the OS having any impact.Markodius wrote:Returned a value for every second elapsed. To what 'proper benchmarks' do you refer?
There are lots of existing, peer reviewed, benchmarks (just google for them) which would help to make a fairer comparison. I quite like those at http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/ which you could take, implement a mathematically relatively simple one such as Mandlebrot in BBC BASIC (but base it on their existing code for it to be a fair test) and then compare against their Python version they supply running on the RPi. Of course to get a full picture you would need to implement a number of them in BASIC, but at least one would give us a general idea.