On 8/15/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:> Austin Ziegler wrote:>> I haven't submitted a bug because I think that the whole project is a>> waste. The only bug report that I'd submit would be "shut the whole>> damned things down." Of course, you'll ignore it.> >> There is also the point that while your pages may not explicitly>> state that one should improve the performance of one's own language,> You quoted the Shootout website as saying "make your language perform> better"
That wording specifically? But what about:
    Compare programming language performance on a few dozen flawed    benchmarks and contribute faster more elegant programs.
I don't know about you, but "contribute faster more elegant programs" isa strong endorsement to "make your [language of choice] perform better."The link for "contribute...", by the way, leads to this text:
    Fix slow broken benchmark programs - read How should I implement    and then contribute a fixed program.
Again, that's an endorsement. So no, I do *not* agree that no such textappears. I'm not reading between the lines, either. Remove the "faster"and "slow" from this and then you might have a leg to stand on. Keep it,and my charge stands.
> You also claimed that> "The Alioth shootout is dishonest in its presentation and purpose. It> does *more* than place "performance" numbers on the screen; it offers> an interpretation of those numbers ... all the while pretending not to> offer said interpretation."> > Do you now agree that no such text appears on the Shootout website?
Nope. The very comparison between languages provides interpretation.Minimal interpretation, mind you, but interpretation nonetheless. You*cannot* meaningfully compare some algorithms in various languages.
>> there is strong implicit encouragement toward such, and the blind>> acceptance of tests that are on the verge of cheating (e.g., the Perl>> Ackermann; the Python Ackermann isn't far off, either, given that it>> won't run at all without one particular non-algorithmic line, while>> not running the Ruby Ackermann with OS configurations that *will* let>> it run) indicate that you really are as clueless as I think you are.> Personal abuse never makes a good argument.> > Ruby Ackermann does run for N=7 and it's slower than Awk.
Ack(3,9): 4093		# ack.rbreal    0m28.750suser    0m28.670ssys     0m0.090s
Ack(3,9): 4093		# ack.pyreal    0m20.595suser    0m13.930ssys     0m0.000s
If I remove the "setrecursionlimit" lines from the Python code, I get:  RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded
By the way, I got the ack.rb running by doing:
  ulimit -s 32768  time ack.rb
Further, unless you're looking at an update that I haven't seen, there'sno awk implementation on the shootout.
The flaw with the Perl Ackermann I've pointed out in the past (namely,there's two implementations, and one of them is done purely for thepurpose of doing better in the results).
If Ruby had a way to modify ulimit for its own process the way thatPython appears to do, then it wouldn't be an issue for Ackermann. Butbecause it doesn't, and you won't run Ackermann with this, there's goingto be a "won't run". It's more than that, but I stand by this: theAlioth shootout is dishonest, and you haven't done anything to make ithonest.
I'm not sure you *can* make it completely honest, but you can certainlydecrease how seriously people take this stinking pile of crap. Yet yourefuse to do so. I wonder why.
-austin-- Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca