Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 6/10/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Also, the tests must use the exact same algorithm, so this
> > > disadvantages Ruby is some situations.  I say the test should compare
> > > same algorithms, but also the one best suited to the language.
> > Do this disadvantage Ruby more than PHP?
> > Or more than Tcl, or more than GNU Smalltalk?
>
> When the algorithm, as entered, won't complete, yes. When compared
> against a language that has tail recursion optimisation, or a possible
> situation where optimisation of the compiler deals with recursion
> intelligently? Yes.

Ruby completes ackermann for N=7
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/fulldata.php?test=ackermann&p1=ocaml-0&p2=clean-0&p3=gcc-3&p4=gcc-0&sort=fullcpu#cputable

Which is how there can be a comparison between Ruby and Tcl on
ackermann
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=tcl&sort=fullcpu#ratio


> The definition of Ackermann numbers is, I presume, well known. Because
> some platforms can't modify their stack level (Windows), and because
> the stack level isn't modified in the runs for the benchmark, there's
> going to be an issue with the deep recursion.

We use Debian Linux, so tell us how to modify the stack level for Ruby.


-snip-
> I personally think that most of the shootout items are bogus in just
> about every way. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not at all suggesting that
> Ruby couldn't be faster. I'm just saying that benchmarks, like
> statistics, are lies.

Sounds like me in editorial mode.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/great/miscfile.php?sort=fullcpu&file=benchmarking&title=Flawed%20Benchmarks