Jeff Meister <nanaki <at> gmail.com> writes:
> We know what your rules are for > binary-trees; repeating them does not help. When Christophe TROESTLER wrongly states - "OCaml is not authorized to make use of its very own library!" - he shows that those rules are not known. > 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. When said Richard opines about programs he apparently hasn't bothered to read, I take that as a sign his opinions might not be based on anything solid. > It makes your results unrealistic, and an > unrealistic benchmark is misleading, or at best merely useless. You should think that benchmarks (not just these) are unrealistic - your application is the ultimate benchmark. Useless? Wouldn't that depend on the objectives? The post you replied to linked-to a 3 line statement of objectives - did you read it? > You are free to tersely reject our constructive criticism Do you really think saying something is "ludicrous" or "silly" is constructive criticism? :-) _______________________________________________ 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
