scientist library was created for safe refactoring parts of ruby code. It compares a result of old code and a result of new code, after calling some callbacks (like something wrong and something is okay). After that scientist returns old code result.
In this case, using scientist as a benchmark library is a strange idea. You can do it, but it's not a general case for it. That's why I think can drop it from
I agree that it's not a perfect case, but still, want to mention it somewhere and there is no better place in a book yet.
Maybe just add a comment that it's not a perfect case?
scientist library was created for safe refactoring parts of ruby code. It compares a result of old code and a result of new code, after calling some callbacks (like something wrong and something is okay). After that scientist returns old code result.
In this case, using scientist as a benchmark library is a strange idea. You can do it, but it's not a general case for it. That's why I think can drop it from