On 8/16/05, Isaac Gouy <igouy / yahoo.com> wrote:
> Daniel Amelang wrote:
> -snip-
> > I highly recommend reading through the arguments and counter arguments
> > before we do a complete reproduction here.
> Thank you Daniel, you might notice my name in those discussions.

Only as an uncritical booster who doesn't actually listen. Just like now, no?

> As you've mentioned, other folk on ruby-talk presented
> counter-arguments to Austin's claims - afaict those counter-arguments
> were never rebutted.

Then you simply can't tell. They were. Basically, the shootout you run
is -- always has been -- and always will be -- crap. You can take
steps to make it honest crap, instead of what it is, though.

> -snip-
> > I'm just trying to save us (and
> > you) from more of the same-old-same-old discussions.
> If there's any substance behind the name-calling we should be able to
> point-out specific errors on the shootout.

When the problem with the shootout is the methodology and the
presentation -- without getting into more substantial errors
(statistical problems) -- and the general unwillingness of the people
who run it to do anything to improve the methodology and presentation,
then there's not a specific error. The whole thing is wrong. Until you
understand that there's problems with your whole damned methodology
and even worse problems with your presentation, you're never going to
get it.

Even if Ruby were to become the best performing language tomorrow, I
wouldn't recommend that anyone pay attention to the pile of garbage
known as the "Great Computer Language Shootout." The only thing
"great" about it is the amount of sheer ignorance that it and its
maintainers willingly perpetuate.

-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca