With herein proposed change one can pass an optional filter to `enso --run test/Benchmarks` to execute only groups and specs that contain given string in its name.
After a discussion, I was really curious that our panics are supposed to be almost free - and while trusting that statement, it was really hard to believe - so I wanted to see for myself - knowing that an experiment is the most robust source of this kind of information - testing that in practice.
So I wrote a benchmark comparing various ways of reporting errors, also testing them both at 'shallow' and 'deep' stack traces (adding 200 additional frames) - to see how stack depth affects them, if at all.
The panics are indeed blazing fast! Kudos to the engine team. However, it seems that our dataflow errors are relatively slow (and we tend to use them _more_ than panics and want to be using them more and more). This uncovers a possible optimization opportunity. Can we make them as fast as panics??
Analysis of the benchmark results in comment below.
# Important Notes
#### The Plot
- there used to be two kinds of benchmarks: in Java and in Enso
- those in Java got quite a good treatment
- there even are results updated daily: https://enso-org.github.io/engine-benchmark-results/
- the benchmarks written in Enso used to be 2nd class citizen
#### The Revelation
This PR has the potential to fix it all!
- It designs new [Bench API](88fd6fb988) ready for non-batch execution
- It allows for _single benchmark in a dedicated JVM_ execution
- It provides a simple way to wrap such an Enso benchmark as a Java benchmark
- thus the results of Enso and Java benchmarks are [now unified](https://github.com/enso-org/enso/pull/7101#discussion_r1257504440)
Long live _single benchmarking infrastructure for Java and Enso_!
