> ::Jeff Meister >Everyone in this thread is capable of reading your site and has >probably already done so. We know what your rules are for >binary-trees; repeating them does not help. Richard's objection, which >you dismissed out of hand, was that your no-GC-tuning rule is silly in >the light of actual uses of garbage collected programming languages on >modern processors. It makes your results unrealistic, and an >unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at best merely useless. You >are free to tersely reject our constructive criticism, but the only >meaningful consequence will be that OCaml users consider the shootout >untrustworthy and completely ignore its results... what good are the >"language comparisons" your project makes if the communities behind >those languages don't support your benchmarking methods?
+1. Seriously, Isaac, try to calm down, everything is fine. You might want to read what others write, I have the feeling that many people were making valid points, whereas you have mostly been turning down any objection by pointing people to the same webpage and again. Andrew. _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
